What is the Universe expanding into? 

You know I love a good paradox.

@@hashtagnoname3931 yeah, but the room service is terrible.

@@daddymuggle Agreed

@@anmolmehrotra923 You should try Hilly Billy Hotel, where there are infinite rooms, infinite residents, infinite number of pantries, cooks, servicemen. Even the sewage pipes are connected to an infinitely large pipe. Pretty cool eh?

Accuracy is very important to me. Too many people sacrifice it for clarity.

Hi!

You got noticed by Senpai.

2:21 Couldn't be supertasks the way around this problem ?

:D

Hi, I'm from another Earth!

Thanks!

better said is "relative"

relatively weird

by the way, metalhead: \m/

Fuck yeah, bro \m/

Not for Thanos.

that got a snort out of me

Glad you found me!

Welcome to the Science Asylum 🤓

You make a good point. One of these days I'll make a video about Hilbert's hotel.

I look forward to that one! Will it be infinitely long? ;)

I don't understand why "copies" are considered a requirement. I would think the fact of there being an infinity would mean there's an infinite possibility of each and every thing, there doesn't seem to be room for copies in such a model.

In an infinite universe, there must be an infinite amount of copies of you (and me). By definition. That is why I do not believe in infitite universe theories. Although…. it seems to be infinite (because flat).

an infinite universe presents just as many problem as the old eternal, unchanging universe people that assumed it was before we knew it was expanding. But yes, Ronald is right, by definition, an infinite amount of space with an infinite amount of molecules by definition will contain an infinite amount of copies of you because the only thing that's finite in this scenario is the possible states of particles. On average, these copies will be around 10^120 apart from each other. But there are also an infinite amount of copies that are RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER!! It's insane to be honest. Infinity is crazy because literally anything that CAN happen WILL happen, no matter how small the chance

That's fair. It's just that any concept we have of "something" requires space and time.

Because 'nothing' by its very nature is outside of human experience, it is hard to conceptualize what 'nothing' would be. All we know, all we've known, all we will ever know, is 'something'.

@@derekwhittom1639 it wouldn't be anything it's the absence of anything

That depends on how time behaves in the distance past (just after the "big bang"). There are two possibilities: 1) There could be a moment when the concept of "before" loses meaning. That's a finite time. 2) Before the big bang, there was a universe that started big and contracted. Then, when it got too compressed, it started to re-expand again. That's infinite time and the 13,800,000,000 years is just how long the universe has been expanding.

Seen it. Good video 👍

1) I'm not sure what you mean by "infinite particles." 2) Everything we've ever observed (short of some weird debatable quantum stuff) takes time. We don't really see /anything/ happen instantly.

I talked about this with a friend of mine and he showed me this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-g1WU35KxLrA.html It expresses the exact same point as mine! With the animation it is easier to understand what I mean (also, I'm from Brazil, so I don't know if I can express myself perfectly in english). So, this video suggests that the Big Bang was an infinitesimal point. And then, at the exact moment after the explosion, the universe became infinite. So I am a little confused because your video explains that the universe was always infinite (which makes perfect sense). But the video I linked says that the universe wasn't infinite at the moment just before the Big Bang, and then became infinite afterwards (which also made sense to me, since I'm not an astrophysicist, thus I don't have a vast knowledge about this subject). I hope that this video explains my question :)

Thesis (expanding Universe) The James Theory! (The Answer Physics can’t explain) Eternity exist and has always existed from eternity past to eternity future, eg, If I blow up a balloon representing our known observable Universe which had a beginning and is filled with material, stars, galaxies etc. it must blow or expand into something which is eternity space eventually our expansion will stop within the eternity space as energy runs out. If the Creator of the universe (God)(Omni Science, Omni Presence, Omni Potence) is eternal then our known universe is held together by the power and purpose of the Sovereign Creator who has eternally existed (and has never been created) but always has existed without a beginning and without an end in eternity space. Makes Perfect sense to me. This is my Simple explanation, my dear Atheist friends may have a harder time to come up with say a formulae, theory or example to make any further sense or non sense of it. Even the theory of multi verses are within the Balloon Concept. And further more this would make our known expanding universe appear as a shrinking speck of dust as in the view and scope of eternity. Everything that has ever existed is symbiotically connected to the past and the future by the all knowing connector. Definitions Omnipresence means minimally that there is no place to which God's knowledge and power do not extend. It is related to the concept of ubiquity, the ability to be everywhere or in many places at once. This includes unlimited temporal presence. Omniscience (/ɒmˈnɪʃəns/) is the capacity to know everything. In monotheistic religions, such as Sikhism and the Abrahamic religions, this is an attribute of God. ... The word omniscience derives from the Latin word sciens ("to know" or "conscious") and the prefix omni ("all" or "every"), but also means "all-seeing". Gods Omnipotence (examples) Revelation 19:6 Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Matthew 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Luke 1:37 For nothing will be impossible with God.”

Sounds good to me.

@@jamest4670 oh. God. STFU. Jeez!

Well, I'm not going to lie to anyone 🤷‍♂️

You're welcome. I think we need to mentally stretch every once in a while.

Well, our observable universe is _very_ evenly distributed with no evidence of drop-off near the edge, which suggests that trend continues out into the stuff we can't see. Like I said in the first video ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fApKpDGGDYk.html ), there's still a 0.4% error margin. If the _whole_ universe is at least 20x larger than the _observable_ universe, then it's possible it could be slightly curved. That is a possibility cosmologists understand.

No. If something destroys the universe, then you will remain unaffected due to the speed of causality.

If you just consider the chances statistically, then this is far more likely to be a simulation than anything else. But, the thing is, we tend to only resort to statistics to simplify a problem that is otherwise too complicated to solve (because stats can /always/ give us an answer). The issue is that, in simplifying the problem, it ignores A BUNCH OF STUFF... so, while stats always gives us an answer, it isn't always correct. I tend to reject the "simulation hypothesis" for two reasons: 1) Any simulation would have a resolution. The real universe looks perfectly continuous down to 1E-18 meters, so any pixels would have to be much smaller. THAT'S SO SMALL!! 2) What would the motivation be to create a simulation so thorough? If it were entertainment, it would be more interesting here. Scientists wouldn't need this kind of precision/resolution unless they were doing psychological or sociological experiments... at which point, it wouldn't be worth the cost of running. There are must cheaper ways to do that.

The Science Asylum Great response. My thoughts as well, especially the purpose of the simulation. I couldn't think of a good purpose for it myself.

I don't see a problem in resolution (why not 1e-18? why not 1e-1000? that is only about the memory). I don't see a problem in the reason either - Ancestor Simulation, we are already trying to simulate the universe from the Big Bang and we will make better and better simulations. But I have different reasons to reject it: 1. If the simulation is too good to allow any kind of exploit, than it is no different from reality. It simply makes no difference, thus we can discard the idea as redundant. (Until you can find the exploit.) 2. Is simulation "alive"? If not, we are not a simulation. If yes, then should we do such simulations? Will we? That changes the "statiscics" completely.

An evolving probabilistic simulation that continues to provide novelty and learning experience to the players. The game never gets old due to its design. Novelty is provided even to its designer. Not that hard to imagine we could do the same thing in a few thousand years with The help of A.I.

The question you have to ask is: What *reason* is there to believe that? That is, what reason is there to believe that we actually live in a simulation? What unexplained phenomenon does the theory shed light on? Answer: None. And thus, there's no reason to entertain the idea. This applies to all theories. When someone long ago first postulated that the earth could be round, someone else must've asked: Are you crazy? Why? -- Because it explains the phenomenon of boats disappearing below the horizon. So I repeat: There is no odd phenomenon where, "We live in a simulation" sheds light on the issue.

In one of the multiverses, we are...maybe 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 one.

Yeah, and it looks stupid too...

Actually Universe is brilliant by it's simplicity and complexity at the same time, when you understand the answer to everything you can finally see that.

@@SoulWhite we don't know it's infinite though and it probably isnt

@@jaydienparks5658 Depends what you mean by infinite I guess, but it definitely is without a doubt. there is nothing else but the universe for us to observe and the universe has no edge. That is infinity in my definition ∞. This world is very young, so obviously you can't find the answer yet in the mainstream media. But it is out there. The universal theory is easy, trust me

@@SoulWhite it may be finite but with no edge most likely how would an infinite universe even form also an infinite universe has a lot of parodoxes we have never seen an infinity in reality

You've got to start at people's expectations before you can debunk them 🤷‍♂️

An infinite universe doesn't offer 'infinite possibilities', it offers an infinite number of possible possibilities.

You may not get an ice cream however you might have unexpected different things occurring to you as they do to everybody at different points of their lives.

It doesn’t work because amongst those infinite possibilities, there are only a few where you get an ice cream and an almost infinite number of possibilities where you don’t. It would involve vast numbers of molecules of ice cream and cone jumping all at the same time, either a whole ice cream cone from an ice cream truck or the constituent chemical elements or compounds, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc, jumping out of the atmosphere to form the cone, from somewhere else into your hands. And there is a vast universe and an incredible period of time for such an incredible event to occur, somewhere else, apart from where you are.

Derek Whittom An ice cream cone jumping into your hands from somewhere else is possible, just very, very, very improbable. Getting two scoops of your favourite flavours makes it even less likely.

It will not happen because an ice-cream in itself is a very complex system . The more complex the system is the harder it will be to appear by chance instead of some specific chain of events with specific rules. To put it in perspective. AN Ice-cream is more complex than the Sun, otherwise the space would have been full of ice-creams.

Please see my most recent video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-t0nGy2rsXYY.html

Etaash Katiyar My thoughts exactly. If it's only our observable universe which we can determine to originate from a singular point, then could it be that there were/are multiple points like that within the same infinite spacetime? That all these point are so far away as to not be observable from anyone residing within anothers expansion parameter? Could the points then be thought as the center of some super black holes that met some critical point in this infinite spacetime leading to their eruptions? Would these different regions in the same infinite spacetime have their own pseudospacetime in much the same way we have time zones? Am I thinking, or do I just think I'm thinking?

exactly, and in an infinite universe, one is bound to one across a black hole/ explosion of arbitrary sizes which might very well be larger than the size of our observable universe

Indeed

1) The big bang wasn't really an explosion. It was just a moment where the universe went from "not expanding" to "expanding everywhere." 2) It also isn't like an explosion that gave matter the momentum to move apart. Based on what we can see, it MUST be the space itself that expands rather than the matter.

So I'm not thinking? :(

Muchas gracias por el like y el corazón. Did you understand why I wrote?

You're not alone in that point of view. I'm just a little more optimistic.

Yes, except time changes the size of some squares in the presence of mass thereby creating a curvature. Also, squares have an orientation at their vertices whereas the universe is isotropic and therefore it is really circles (spheres in 3D) not squares. But, when you subdivide a circle you find that the sides do not touch at every point (unlike a square); they only intersect at 4 points (actually 6 points for sphere). This is probably where the additional dimensions are required ... to "connect" the quantum spheres of space at all surface points beyond the 6 discrete contact points in the 3 macrospatial dimensions. My guess is that all the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics and even gravity are related to these higher dimensional connecting structures, and that they are in fact based in a mathematics that string theory has merely tickled not solved.

I've been considering making a playlist of my favorite videos.

Correct. Finite matter in an infinite universe is possible, but highly unlikely.

Well said.

1) Correct. It would never technically reach a maximum. But it would level off near a maximum. Math people call it an asymptote. 2 & 3) If it ever stopped expanding, it _would_ recontract. There's no way it can stop and then maintain size. In that case, would entropy go back down? Maybe. If not, the universe would crunch back unto itself and stop at a reverse big bang. If entropy does go back down, then the universe could crunch and immediately re-expand into another universe. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-A2VErbGtuD4.html

I love to make longer videos, so I do it whenever I can. I can't every time though. You got spoiled with one in late December and then another in early March. I will make more. Promise.

Scientifically speaking, the statement "you can't get something from nothing" isn't actually a fundamental law. It's just something that's _usually_ true (it's true on the scale we work on).

Matt has good stuff over there.