# What is the universe expanding into?

Come on, admit it, you've had this question. "Since astronomers know that the Universe is expanding, what's it expanding into? What's outside of the Universe?" Ask any astronomer and you'll get an unsatisfying answer. We give you the same unsatisfying answer, but really explain it, so your unsatisfaction doesn't haunt you any more.

The short answer is that this is a nonsense question, the Universe isn't expanding into anything, it's just expanding.

The definition of the Universe is that it contains everything. If something was outside the Universe, it would also be part of the Universe too. Outside of that? Still Universe. Out side of THAT? Also more Universe. It's Universe all the way down. But I know you're going to find that answer unsatisfying, so now I'm going to break your brain.

Either the Universe is infinite, going on forever, or its finite, with a limited volume. In either case, the Universe has no edge. When we imagine the Universe expanding after the Big Bang, we imagine an explosion, with a spray of matter coming from a single point. But this analogy isn't accurate.

A better analogy is the of an expanding . Not the 3 dimensional balloon, just its 2 dimensional surface. If you were an ant crawling around the surface of a huge balloon, and the balloon was your whole universe, you would see the balloon as essentially flat under your feet.

Imagine the balloon is inflating. In every direction you look, other ants are moving away from you. The further they are, the faster away they're moving. Even though it feels like a flat surface, walk in any direction long enough and you'd return to your starting point.

You might imagine a growing circle and wonder what it's expanding into. But that's a nonsense question. There's no direction you could crawl that would get you outside the surface. Your 2-dimensional ant brain can't comprehend an expanding 3-dimensional object. There may be a center to the balloon, but there's no center to the surface. Just a shape that extends in all directions and wraps in upon itself. And yet, your journey to make one lap around the balloon takes longer and longer as the balloon gets more inflated.

To better understand how this relates to our Universe, we need to scale things up by one dimension, from a 2-d surface embedded in a 3-d world, to a 3-d volume embedded within a 4-d . Astronomers think that if you travel in any direction far enough, you'll return to your starting position. If you could stare far enough into space, you would be looking at the back of your own head.

And so, as the Universe expands, it would take you longer and longer to lap the Universe and return to your starting position. But there's no direction you could travel in that would take you outside or "off" of the Universe. Even if you could move faster than the speed of light, you'd just return to your starting position more quickly. We see other galaxies moving away from us in all directions just as our ant would see other ants moving away on the surface of the balloon.

A great analogy comes from my Astronomy Cast co-host, Dr. Pamela Gay. Instead of an explosion, imagine the expanding Universe is like a loaf of raisin bread rising in the oven. From the perspective of any raisin, all the other raisins are moving away in all directions. But unlike a loaf of raisin bread, you could travel in any one direction within the bread and eventually return to your starting raisin.

Remember that our entire comprehension is based on 3-dimensions. If we were 4-dimensional creatures, this would make much more sense. For a much deeper explanation, I highly recommend you watch my good friend, Zogg the Alien explain how the Universe has no edge. After watching his videos, you should totally understand the possible topologies of our Universe.

I hope this helps you understand why there's no answer to "what is the Universe expanding into?" With no edge, it's not expanding into anything, it's just expanding.

Source: Universe Today

Feedback to editors

Nov 28, 2013
My dad has often asked me the question about what is outside the "end" of the universe, and I haven't been able to answer it; the idea of an two-dimensional ant on an expanding balloon clarifies it, at least for me, as to why "our" universe might not have an edge, so I'll have to share this idea with him over Thanksgiving dinner.

But this explanation raises another question in my mind. Is our three-dimensional universe expanding within a four-dimensional universe, one we cannot see, the same way that the ant cannot see our three-dimensional universe? Isn't that just another way of asking what is "outside" of our universe? Is it a valid question?

Nov 28, 2013
Pseudo-scientific metaphysical mumbo jumbo, every bit of it!.

Nov 28, 2013
Is our three-dimensional universe expanding within a four-dimensional universe, one we cannot see, the same way that the ant cannot see our three-dimensional universe? Isn't that just another way of asking what is "outside" of our universe? Is it a valid question?

Rather, our brain is wired to think that there is always something beyond whatever we know so far. "what happened before big bang ?" (question of time) "what is outside universe ?" (question of space) .

But spacetime itself is a by product of bigbang (harsh truth- as far as science today is concerned)

Note: Other dimensions are already within this universe according to certain quantum theories (Superstring theory, M-theory) except that they are "curled up" (atleast according to these theories)

Nov 28, 2013
Pseudo-scientific metaphysical mumbo jumbo, every bit of it!.

Honored to be the one to give you a 1

Nov 28, 2013
"There may be a center to the balloon, but there's no center to the surface. Just a shape that extends in all directions and wraps in upon itself."

The analogy that our universe expands in a similar, but three dimensional, way is supported by observation. In any direction we look, other galaxies are moving away from us in a uniform way and so is the Cosmic Microwave Background, (CMB), the far away afterglow of the Big Bang -- except that lately some deviation from uniformity in the CMB has been detected. I think this opens the possibility that there may be a central origin point for the Big Bang after all and that the universe is simultaneously expanding in two different modes. The main mode is the uniform expansion driven by "dark energy". Just barely detectable, because we are far from the center, is an expansion due to the Big Bang. Think of one special spot on the balloon surface, perhaps where the air originally entered, where expansion was initially faster than elsewhere.

Nov 28, 2013
"My dad has often asked me the question about what is outside the "end" of the universe, and I haven't been able to answer it" - Marciot

What is outside a box that contains everything there is?

What number is bigger than the biggest number?

What is farther north than the north pole?

Why does 1 not equal 1?

How long is a piece of string?

Nov 28, 2013
" I think this opens the possibility that there may be a central origin point for the Big Bang" - Adam Smith

There is.

It is located at point ( 0,0,0,0*i ), excluding the quantum effects from which the universe seems to have originated.

Nov 28, 2013
"Pseudo-scientific metaphysical mumbo jumbo, every bit of it!." - Can'tDriveTooStupid

Thanks for you Conservative take on science.

You are a fine example of why home schooling is unwise.

Nov 28, 2013
Beyond the universe there is whimsy.

Nov 28, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 28, 2013
What is farther north than the north pole?

Exactly. At the North pole, all directions are South, just like at the Big Bang, all directions are the future.

Similarly, any and all directions from any point on the 2D surface of a spherical balloon brings you back to your starting point. This mathematical property is ported to the shape's equivalent in 3D or any Ds.

As long as they are additional geometric dimensions that is, i.e. this does not apply to Time (and in that sense, the tesseract analogy of 4D space can be misleading in some respects).

Interestingly, this is also the case if the balloon is not spherical, but it may take more revolutions around the shape before you return to your starting point. This distance is proportional to the shape's complexity and could be very large, but as long as the shape folds back on itself you will aways, eventually, return to your starting point.

Nov 29, 2013
hm, I feel this is more a problem of semantics and how we define what "everything" or 'universe" is.

Nothing says this package of space, time and matter is everything and that there is nothing outside, besides, in or on top of it, i.e. would a (hypothetical) parallel universe count as "our" universe as well?

We have never observed any edges or borders, know not what 3-dimensional shape it has, unable to give any reasonable estimation of its size and no evidence of a 4th dimension whatsoever.

Yea the raisin bread explains the lack of center of our expanding universe well, pretty cute. But nothing I've ever come across shows any proof there is or isn't something outside our universe and if it were, if we should semantically incorporate it as part of the universe or say it is another one.

In some languages the word universe translates roughly into " whole all" or "everything". That would by definition at least include everything and not perceive universe as a confined space...

Nov 29, 2013
... and not as "a universe" and maybe another one next to it.

Also mathematicians seem to disagree if something finite can grow into infinite. If it would be finite, it will have an edge albeit less perceivable in 3 dimensions, if it would be infinite it would still not exclude another infinite universe next to it.

So the only correct answer for the question of what our universe is expanding into would be: we haven't got the faintest clue what's it expanding into.

Nov 29, 2013
Pseudo-scientific metaphysical mumbo jumbo, every bit of it!.

You should know. You're the expert on such things!

Nov 29, 2013
"Astronomers think that if you travel in any direction far enough, you'll return to your starting position."

That's simply not true. We don't know whether the universe is infinite in every direction, spherical, or some weird crumply thing. If the universe is spherical or toroidal, and if it stopped expanding, then it's true that you could theoretically go in one direction until you came back to where you started. But we will never know! Eventually, as dark energy begins to dominate the universe, the expansion rate will be such that no matter how fast we go, so long as we don't go faster than light, distant galaxies will be moving away from us faster!

Other than that, I like this explanation, it's a very nice way of explaining that there is no need for our universe to be inside anything. For another perspective, try this article: http://www.thephy...niverse/

Nov 30, 2013

If that's true, the growth of the Universe, it's expansion, appears to be accelerating when what's actually happening is the Universe is being drawn towards itself?

Imagine a ball attached to one end of an elastic cord and the cord is anchored to some point in a room. The ball is then thrown across the room and at the moment the cord is at its highest tension, the ball is frozen and the cord's anchor point is moved 180 degrees in all directions around the ball so the ball is now travelling towards the elastic cord's new anchor point and the cord has all the tension it had prior to relocation.

Any observer could not be ahead of the ball thus the ball would always appear to be receding from the observer.

The ball would accelerate away from the previous anchor point at an increasing rate which the observer would have difficulty quantifying.

Thoughts?

Nov 30, 2013
Many times ,I asked to Dr. Stephen Hawking ."what frame of reference used by scientist to measure exact size of universe at certain moment ; with which they are imaging about whether the universe is expanding or synchronizing'?..but yet i didn't get any answer from him.To find a change we must have ideal frame of reference with which we can compare the change..i.e if i say i am tall person then i must know average height of all human beings....

Nov 30, 2013
Is our three-dimensional universe expanding within a four-dimensional universe, one we cannot see, the same way that the ant cannot see our three-dimensional universe? Isn't that just another way of asking what is "outside" of our universe? Is it a valid question?

The mathematics that general relativity uses (differential geometry) was specifically developed so that only properties that are intrinsic to the space-time in question need be considered, and not an embedding in a higher-dimensional space.

If it is unobservable in principal, it is a metaphysical question, and so is not scientifically valid.

Nov 30, 2013
Many times ,I asked to Dr. Stephen Hawking ."what frame of reference used by scientist to measure exact size of universe at certain moment ; with which they are imaging about whether the universe is expanding ....

The standard cosmological model makes the assumption (observationally justified) of the homogeneity and isotropy of space-time, so our reference frame will do.

Nov 30, 2013
"Zephir_fan" gives me 1's for the above two posts; Is there something there disagreeable to you "skippy", or are you just being a rating troll?

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
Thoughts?

Not exactly how I would have described that mumbo jumbo Skippy. Thoughts are thing you think and requires some thoughtfulness, otherwise all you get is a bunch of thoughtless mumbo jumbo.

And yet You have yet to make a single substantive and relevant post here, only Jerry-Springer trolling. Even the cranks have demonstrated more knowledge while being wrong. Do Phys.Org a favour and bugger-off.

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
"Zephir_fan" gives me 1's for the above two posts; Is there something there disagreeable to you "skippy", or are you just being a rating troll?

There is a reason for the 1's Skippy. Do I need to spell out the reason why you get the one karma points? I'm not a rating troll, I always have stuffs to say with karma ratings.

The misuse of the rating system for you moronic "karma points" IS troll rating, imbecile.

You should be evaluating each post individually based on their own individual merits, not on whether or not you like the poster. This isn't facebook. How old are you?

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
The misuse of the rating system for you moronic "karma points" IS troll rating, imbecile.

You should be evaluating each post individually based on their own individual merits, not on whether or not you like the poster or not. This isn't facebook.

Each of your posts is individually not good.

Then you should be able to tell me what it is that is "not good" with my above posts. Wouldn't that be correct, dimwit?

Skippy you should be glad that they won't peoples give you the minus karma points.

This is probably how you actually speak. How old are you?

Nov 30, 2013
The balloon analogy is just BS sophistry so no one has to think about what's outside the universe. It wraps it all up in a nice neat package that's all inside and no outside. The universe exploded from a point source, it's a sphere. It's probably expanding into nothing, the only thing that actually can be infinite.

Nov 30, 2013
It's probably expanding into nothing, the only thing that actually can be infinite.

But what kind of "nothing" do you mean? It doesn't make any operational sense to say it is expanding Into or Through space-time.

Nov 30, 2013
If it works so well, why doesn't he create a power company and start selling his own electricity?

Nov 30, 2013
If it works so well, why doesn't he create a power company and start selling his own electricity?

Sorry, posted on the wrong article, somehow.

Nov 30, 2013
Thoughts?

Not exactly how I would have described that mumbo jumbo Skippy. Thoughts are thing you think and requires some thoughtfulness, otherwise all you get is a bunch of thoughtless mumbo jumbo.

Skippy? Who is Skippy?

Nov 30, 2013
The misuse of the rating system for you moronic "karma points" IS troll rating, imbecile.

You should be evaluating each post individually based on their own individual merits, not on whether or not you like the poster or not. This isn't facebook.

Each of your posts is individually not good.

Then you should be able to tell me what it is that is "not good" with my above posts. Wouldn't that be correct, "Skippy"?

Nov 30, 2013
Thoughts?

Not exactly how I would have described that mumbo jumbo Skippy. Thoughts are thing you think and requires some thoughtfulness, otherwise all you get is a bunch of thoughtless mumbo jumbo.

Skippy? Who is Skippy?

It's the pathetic attempt of a dolt to talk down to people without having to actually say anything of substance or articulate a counter argument.

zephir_fan is either a friend of, boyfriend of, or the mother or father of, GhostofOtto1923.

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
Skippy? Who is Skippy?

Skippy is what I call peoples. You are now a Skippy, Skippy. The Ira calls everyone Skippy. Sort of like "dude" or "you" or "Slick". It's easier to keep track of when you have a big crowd of not so smart people to keep up without having to remember each one's name.

Okay. Thanks, Skippy.

Nov 30, 2013
So now, Skippy seems to think Skippy's question is not worthy of Skippy's reply.

Skippy gets to call Skippy a Skippy simply for thinking like a Skippy.

In doing so, Skippy has become Skippy.

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
Then you should be able to tell me what it is that is "not good" with my above posts. Wouldn't that be correct, "Skippy"?

Because the stuffs you say don't add up. They are not scientifical even though you try to throw in a lot of scientifical buzz words. If you don't understand the things in these articles maybe you should not be so disruptive and let the smart people teach you some stuffs.

I will quote my first post (in response to another) again, of which you rated a 1.....

The mathematics that general relativity uses (differential geometry) was specifically developed so that only properties that are intrinsic to the space-time in question need be considered, and not an embedding in a higher-dimensional space. - Noumenon

If you don't recognize this statement as relevant to the above article and subsequent discussion, and as factual given the prevalent scientific theory,... you're not even close to being qualified in assessing anyones posts here.

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
Not a problem. Hey, you might not want to pay to attention to that Newman dude, he's known for snatching out words from the interweb and put them here to look smart. But he really doesn't know much about anything. He likes to pretend that he is very educated, but he's really not, he's a plagerist or how ever you spell it. You know what I mean. He's also fond of the wordy philosophical double speak too. I'll give you some good karma points for being nice to the Ira.
I'll pay attention to whomever posts intelligent things, as in non-accusation, unbiased. I'll then research to the best of my ability and understanding and agree with whomever I choose, Skippy.

And, IRA? I'm Irish and don't like the IRA so your point is?

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
And, IRA? I'm Irish and don't like the IRA so your point is?

I'm not Irish, I'm American. Ira is my name, and Skippy, I don't care if you don't like the Ira or not. It won't make one bit of difference to what I do for the rest of the day. You've gotten yourself back on the bad karma points list.
I prefer to be on-topic whereas it appears you do not.
Thanks for your (lack of) commitment.

Nov 30, 2013
If you don't recognize this statement as relevant to the above article and subsequent discussion, and as factual given the prevalent scientific theory,... you're not even close to being qualified in assessing anyones posts here.

Who wrote that for you Skippy? I qualified to know that you could not possibly know anything about the relativity stuffs or how to do the ciphering on it..

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why I was wrong in that post.....

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
What is outside a box that contains everything there is?

Nothing.

It's the Game of Black vs White, if you know your Zen philosophy. You can't know Up without Down. You can't know Inside without Outside.

But what kind of "nothing" do you mean?

Nothing does not have attributes.

Yesterday upon a star, I met some space that wasn't thar.
It wasn't thar again today, I wonder how it just goes away.

Oh ... awful whimsy. Must have breakfast and coffee.

Nov 30, 2013
I'm still waiting for you to tell me why I was wrong in that post.....

I don't know why you are wrong. Maybe it's because you didn't go school. Maybe it's because you learned science from comic books. You should know better than the Ira why you were wrong, you were there.

You have been exposed as a fraud and a corrupt troll.

But what kind of "nothing" do you mean?

Nothing does not have attributes.

It depends on what (s)he means by "nothing",.... i.e. vacuum,.... 'metaphysical nothing'?

Nov 30, 2013
Nothing by definition is the absence of anything. No vacuum, no virtual particles, no space, no time, no energy, no matter, blah blah. You can't measure it. You can't detect it. It's um er ... Nothing.

The proof of the existence of Nothing is in logic or perhaps an argument in metaphysics, not science. Just as with this article, barely logical, somewhat nonsensical and certainly Not Science.

Nov 30, 2013
Well, reading the posts makes me dizzy let alone the articles question...I'm not sure who is saying what to who (or is it 'whom') or why, ha! The 'My dad...' posts remind me of what my Dad said to me 'Never ask Dad questions that Dad can't answer.' and I replied with something like 'But how will I know that Dad doesn't know if I don't ask the question?' 'Very good', he said to the young boy, 'And thats the first question.'
Took me a long time to work that one out. Maybe we haven't got to the point where our knowledge can ask the right question about what,where and how the Universe is. We are still learning about how Fascinating the Universe is so lets just appreciate that journey first and ask the final question when we come to it...always assuming that there is such a thing as a 'final question', ha!

Nov 30, 2013
Skippy is probably the most famous Kangaroo in Australia.
Ask any Aussie over 35 years old and all you get is fond memories.

http://en.wikiped...Kangaroo

I love Skippy.

Nov 30, 2013
So what color is the nothing that the universe is expanding into?

Nov 30, 2013
After the Universe is the Multiverse.
He knows: http://media.scre...9_25.png

Nov 30, 2013
zephir_fan is either a friend of, boyfriend of, or the mother or father of, GhostofOtto1923
Your words sting like ice crystals in a cold winter wind. In the dark of a moonless night.

Nice slapfight. You guys done yet? There IS no metaphysical. No place to be, no place to go.

Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 30, 2013
So what color is the nothing that the universe is expanding into?

Lol ... The universe is not expanding into anything. There's nothing until there's something. When there's something, it's part of the universe.

Simples.

Dec 01, 2013
Almost, one more little thing about the Noumenon, have you seen this little gem?

If you read through the comments, there seem to be about 12 or 15 peoples casting votes. Unless it's Noumenon, it seems he got 70 to 80 votes for his comments. (I guess that would explain how he just barely was able to keep the 3.5 karma point average

If you were even mildly literate in math and logic you would at least have been curious as to how those comments barely attained a 3 average after "70 to 80" supposedly self inflicted votes, especially if there were but "12 to 15 others voting" me down.

Thus it MUST have been that I was engaged in a massive troll rating war. The FrankHerbert/BAKOON troll has done this many times. There is still the open/toot/NOM set of dingbats.

I have sent countless requests to phys.org to disable comment ratings because of this. They are inept and participate in it themselves, therefore I counter invalid ratings myself.

Dec 01, 2013
It's probably expanding into nothing, the only thing that actually can be infinite.

But what kind of "nothing" do you mean? It doesn't make any operational sense to say it is expanding Into or Through space-time.

Spacetime isn't nothing, it's something. Nothing is literally absolutely nothing, no space, no time, no point of reference.

Dec 01, 2013
It's nice to see that internet bullies live, even on sites like this.

My take on the whole concept, I think we'll discover multiple dimensions and an infinite number of "Big Bangs" I'm perfectly okay with an infinite universe with no end and no beginning.

Dec 01, 2013
It's probably expanding into nothing, the only thing that actually can be infinite.

But what kind of "nothing" do you mean? It doesn't make any operational sense to say it is expanding Into or Through space-time.

Spacetime isn't nothing, it's something.

Yes correct, it's why I wanted the poster to clarify by posing,.... "It depends on what (s)he means by "nothing",.... i.e. vacuum,.... 'metaphysical nothing'",..... to differentiate between vacuum "nothing" (which is a something) and a metaphysical nothing,...

Nothing is literally absolutely nothing, no space, no time, no point of reference.

.... with no sense of making reference to, especially as an "infinite thing" that the universe expands into.

Dec 01, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 01, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 01, 2013
I have sent countless requests to phys.org to disable comment ratings because of this. They are inept and participate in it themselves
-as old Ethelred pbuh himself suggested. But savvy posters like the suspect antialias never use their primary user names to downrate, using I suspect only sickpuppets to express their disdain. At least we know who we are, right nou?

There IS NO metaPHYSICAL. Everything that is or was or ever will be is entirely PHYSICAL and thus can be wholly understood scientifically.

The only thing that 'metaphysical' explains is how hungry philos are miraculously able to feed themselves. But as a species we were selected for our skills at deception long ago. And so science explains this as well.

Dec 01, 2013
For instance
If it is unobservable in principal, it is a metaphysical question, and so is not scientifically valid
-You cannot use a fuzzy philo term to describe what science has already described mathematically. SCIENCE tells you what 'unobservable' means and it does so scientifically. Science will tell you that 'unobservable' is never an eternal conclusion but only the best understanding to date. Your 'metaphysical' puts it in a box and sets it on a shelf.

Science has as yet found NOTHING which has proven to be inaccessible. The quantum state continues to be probed and defined, and manipulated.

You understand that no scientist uses the term metaphysical in the course of his work don't you? Philos, like godders, will jump as soon as scientists say 'we don't yet know', and plant their cross. But they never assist, they never clarify. They only confuse and retard and damage the pursuit of real knowledge.

It's selfish. It's despicable.

Dec 01, 2013
.... it's a shame that you wasted all that effort in your little rant by agreeing with me.

Dec 01, 2013
.... it's a shame that you wasted all that effort in your little rant by agreeing with me.
no if you agreed with ME you would stop using the term metaphysics as it has NO MEANING.

Dec 01, 2013
.... it's a shame that you wasted all that effort in your little rant by agreeing with me.
no if you agreed with ME you would stop using the term metaphysics as it has NO MEANING.

Actually it does have meaning as you can verify by consulting any dictionary, ....when used in reference in qualifying statements or questions,.... precisely as my use of it above.

In other words, I never made any ontological pronouncements of a metaphysical nature. I only qualified a question as being metaphysical in nature,... and metaphysical QUESTIONS or STATEMENTS do in fact exist, irrespective of their validity.

Dec 01, 2013
Actually it does have meaning as you can verify by consulting any dictionary
-So do the terms 'voodoo' and 'bullshit'. Your word has entirely different meanings depending on whichever philo you choose to ask. And according to scientists it has no meaning whatsoever.
ontological
-Ditto for this word. Theyre the old scam 'well what is the meaning of life... why are we here... what is the nature of reality... etcetc' voodoo/bullshit. You answer in exactly the same way as the pope would, except you use different words to say 'Yes my son. Those are questions that only PHILOSOPHY/GOD can answer.

The correct answer is that they and their ilk are nonsense questions, which is why they can only be answered using nonsense terms like 'metaphysics' and 'the eternal soul'. What crap.

Dec 01, 2013
As I said, ...irrespective of the validity of those questions, those questions do as a matter of fact exist. By my qualifying the question above as "metaphysical" and "not scientifically valid", it should even be clear to zephir_fan that I am using that phrase in the pejorative sense,.... that it is a nonsense question.

Should I make a sockpuppet anima for for, or do you think you got it now?

Dec 01, 2013
The term universe refers to everything there is, so the universe can't expand since there is nothing outside the universe to expand into. The part of the universe that we can see is expanding into the rest of the universe, and other parts of the universe may be expanding into the rest of the universe and into each other (merging), we don't know. It would be presumptuous to say that we can know about the entire universe by how much or little we can see of it. All we do know is that the universe is larger than what we can see and that this part is expanding.

Dec 01, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 01, 2013
As I said, ...irrespective of the validity of those questions, those questions do as a matter of fact exist. By my qualifying the question above as "metaphysical" and "not scientifically valid", it should even be clear to zephir_fan that I am using that phrase in the pejorative sense,.... that it is a nonsense question.

I was going to go easy on you today Skippy. But if you are going be accusing the Ira of perjury the truce is off. ... So don't call me a liar....

LOL, maybe you should look up the word "pejorative" and try reading with more comprehension; I never accused you of perjury nor did I call you a liar.

But apparently I was wrong above, as it wasn't clear to you after all.

Dec 01, 2013
@Noumenon
"Zephir_fan" gives me 1's for the above two posts; Is there something there disagreeable to you "skippy", or are you just being a rating troll?

What Zephyr_fan does with his rating of your post is his business. Yet anyone who gives you a 1/5 is labelled, by you, a ratings troll.
There is only one rating troll here on physorg Noumenon, you.
You have at least 50 sockpuppets purely for uprating yourself, and the occasional user you abuse with your sockpuppet army, such as FrankHerbert.
Your attempt to uprate yourself is a lie. It is hypocritical, childish and pathetic.
You must spend hours every day doing nothing but uprating yourself. I suggest you seek therapy.

Dec 01, 2013
These are not questions that scientists or anybody understands properly. So giving an analogy of balloon, or loaf with raisins is just an attempt to understand these complexities at kindergarten level.

The idea of existence itself is very complex and beyond our understanding. What exists? Universe or the equations that describe the universe? And how do we guarantee?

Imagine tomorrow's quantum theory improvements (and this field is still new/changing) bridge the gap between the ultra small and ultra big and prove that ultra big is only an approximation of ultra small, in such a case the mathematical approximation of universe may not at all be just an envelope but may be much more complex. If we settle for multi-verse kind of situation then universe will not be all that our balloon/loaf describes now?

So the totality that exists is not just what we know today or things after big bang. You need concepts that cover things before big bang, multi-verse and all possibilities.

Dec 01, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 01, 2013
@NOM troll,

Actually numbnuts, my definition of a rating troll is simply one who rates others a 1 irrespective of the content of posts. You qualify eminently along with open, lite, toot, since you and zephir_fan both rated my first two posts in this thread a 1, while surely they did not deserve such a rating. Thus you are a corrupt fraud.

I however, only counter troll raters as their ratings are invalid. FrankHerbert brought my ratings from 3.6 to 2.1 with his mass troll rating campaigns, prior to me responding.

Dec 01, 2013
Your attempt to uprate yourself is a lie. It is hypocritical, childish and pathetic.

Nope, it invalidates lying troll raters, to which I have admitted, thus not a lie. I don't let them get away with their corruption. It is no more childish and pathetic than your own 1-rating campaign against me, and your own disabling of your 'activity page'.

If the Phys.Org administrators were at all honest, they would disable the abused comment rating system, and allow posts to stand on their own merits, as this would clean the site of incompetent self appointed 'thought police' and trolls trying to obscure the value of posts by 1-rating every one.

Instead, NOM has no issues with disruptive and insulting commentors like zephir_fan, who has yet to add any substance.

Dec 01, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 01, 2013
It's one to ting to disagree (or agree) with other people's ideas on a topic, but I don't understand what all the 'name calling' and 'vote' is about. Being new to this site in my naivety I thought any voting came from the/a physorg group that arranges the articles for discussion. I thought that if my comments didn't get a good vote it was simply because 'some group' thought my comments were not good enough to deserve more. But according to some posts here it seems that I am wrong. Oh well, live and learn, I suppose.
The articles comment about '...to a 3-d volume embedded within a 4-d universe...' seems to a bit out of context to me(I take it that this does NOT refer to 4D SR). The old story of 'flatland' comes to mind and that we as 3D beings could see inside Mr. Flat.But If we are going to invoke more physical dimensions then the same could apply to us and why stop at 4? In looking for a 'testable' theory of the Universe's state how does one test for 4D?

Dec 01, 2013
@Zephir_fan,

If I cared about ratings scores, why would I request repeatedly that phys.org disable the entire rating system?

Evidently, the rating trolls are the ones who 'care about ratings', as they use them to obscure the value of comments from posters they don't like.

Why does Zephir_fan spend all day making idiotic and rude remarks to posters, without actually supplying substantive counter arguments, and why does (s)he speak of 'karma points', and use the rating system as a toy?

Why does NOM not have an issue with that, and why does NOM/ open/ toot care so much about MY rating score to spend so much time clicking on ones and objecting to my invalidating their efforts?

Dec 01, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 01, 2013
Everyone of your posts are completely vacuous, devoid of actual substantive content. You literally don't post anything about any subject, nor have you ever corrected nor debated me, ....just a stream of Jerry-Springer ad hominems.

Dec 01, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 01, 2013
Mimath224, the vast majority of your 1 votes are from Otto's block of assholes or sockpuppets.

toot | Nikolaus | Colombe | VendicarH | NamVet6666 | Zephir_fan | TheSicilian | Blotto | and more
are all GhostofOtto1923's CURRENT voting sockpuppet block.

They have literally thousands of down-votes cast on this site. Yes. Thousands.

This site is interesting, but the comments section is a cesspool of voting blocks, cabals, alliances and nonsensical crap. - example - Zephyr-fan.

There is speculation that the mod of the comments is almost powerless to change the way it is abused. Perhaps for abusing his small amount of power. I think this is true.
I have had factual posts disappear when they would prove Otto wrong in an argument.

Perhaps there is a family connection being abused.

If you wish to comment, go ahead, everyone knows what bullshit the voting block is.
If they bother you, come back as another name and try your luck again.

Or just don't ever disagree with Otto.

Dec 01, 2013
Everyone of your posts are completely vacuous, devoid of actual substantive content. You literally don't post anything about any subject, nor have you ever corrected nor debated me, ....just a stream of Jerry-Springer ad hominems.

Dec 01, 2013
Zephir_fan: What do you care what Noum. does here? Do you have a man-crush on him?

Do you need to change your name to Zephir_fag?

It would be interesting to calculate the lost ad revenue from people being fed up with the comments section garbage. It certainly is the worst comment section I've ever seen.

Dec 01, 2013
Everyone of your posts are completely vacuous, devoid of actual substantive content. You literally don't post anything about any subject, nor have you ever corrected nor debated me, ....just a stream of Jerry-Springer ad hominems.

I would ask you to do the same, but you have no activity page, ...talk about vacuous and hypocritical.

Interesting that you have no issues with zephir_fan's disruptive and insulting comments toward random posters, but only issues with responses to that behavior. You're obviously bias in some way, and thus corrupt. Arn't you a mod at physics forums? Unprofessional.

Dec 01, 2013
,... weren't comment ratings disabled there?

Dec 01, 2013

Skippy that is the stupidest mumbo jumbo posted all day. Except for newman's drivel about metaology. I think the envelope was delivered to the wrong address. Where do you guys come up these weird names? .......?

So do you know what type of universe you live in? Is it universe or muti-verse, finite or infinite?
This analogy of expanding balloon or expading rasin loaf is based on Einstein's idea of space time that doesn't include anything before big bang and that doesn't include black holes or multi-verse type possibilities.

I am not asking you to not to celeberate assumed stupidity of others, but don't stick to any raisin/loafy idea so much that you ignore all other possibilities. Black holes are still barely understood and so is the possibility of warmholes/multiverse etc. The shape related understanding of universe/time/space/gravity is eventually more of a perception than a sound concept as of now.

Dec 01, 2013
@theenvelopeofideas,
I can guarantee you that zephir_fan did not put anywhere near that much thought into his reply to you.

Dec 02, 2013
@Noumenon,
thanks:-), I am too amazed by what all scientists think about these possibilities (beyond my comprehension) and so i do not mind being called stupid; but i don't like people sticking too heavily to any idea without giving/having enough reason. That goes against science.

Dec 02, 2013
First, I will give my opinion on the expansion of the Universe. IMO, the Universe is configured similar to a Mobius Strip, which is a surface with one continuous side that is formed by joining the ends of a rectangular strip after twisting one end through 180 degrees.

But, instead of a thin ribbon-like rectangular shape, the surface is much wider, so wide that it could cover a sphere and yet remain like a Mobius Strip. The width of it enables the galaxies to seem to move away from each other in all directions, but all are headed in one direction and all will return to the place of origin after making the round. There is no way to prove it, of course.

Next, I suspect that Zephir_fan has taken the place of FrankHerbert, a sockpuppet belonging to Theghostofotto1923. Otto the Nazi lover just can't resist hassling Noumenon and others for the fun of it, and makes liberal use of his legion of sockpuppets for that purpose and to accuse others of sockpuppetry.

Isn't that right, Otto?

Dec 02, 2013
Don't fret over those bad karma points you are getting. They are probably coming from Noumenon's sock legion. He really gets mad if someone says smarter stuffs than he does, and he's mad all the time because everybody says smarter stuffs than he does.

He has a legion of 45 or 50 voting puppets and he only uses about five on current pages. The rest he uses to go back to old pages he has bookmarked so no one will notice the ballot stuffing stuffs. See my profile.
- Zephir_fan

Z_f says "See my profile." This is something that Theghostofotto1923 says when referring to his lies about Estevan57, The Alchemist, Obama_socks and others. See my profile.

In fact, the wording is changed slightly such as "stuffs", but it is obvious that Otto is switching back and forth between his sockpuppet Zephir_fan. Certain phrases and words are identical with the things that GhostofOtto says.

Another thing...how would Otto know who is up or downrating Noumenon in Noum's posts from back then?

Dec 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 02, 2013
Another thing...how would Otto know who is up or downrating Noumenon in Noum's posts from back then?

When one persons is getting 70 or 80 karma votes and everyone else is getting 10 or 12 it's pretty obvious who is doing the puppet voting when they are working so hard to stay at 3.5 karma points.

Then I must have been getting massive amounts of 1's, right. Can you do math, twit.

If you didn't have such a corrupt and illiterate Jerry-Springer'esque mentality, it would have been clear to you that I must have been mass 1-rated by trolls to have responded in kind, and you wouldn't waste time admonishing one for defeating the efforts of troll 1-raters, and would not participate in it your self.

Your actions and the content of your posts demonstrate worse character than one who undermines the effort of trolls.

Dec 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 02, 2013
I'll do the Maths.

A while back I did an in-depth "survey" of Noumenon's sockpuppet self voting.
It took several hours of non-stop 1/5ing to even make a dent in Noumenon's self inflated average score. A huge number of his posts have been self inflated.

I estimate that I 1/5ed him about 4,000 times to make a 0.1 difference in his score.
Since he is a crank, conspiracy theorist, an idiot, and a whiny git, I estimate that his self "love" has inflated his score about 1.5.

That is a lot of effort for someone who claims not to care about the rating.

Dec 02, 2013
Or could it be that your 1-trolling is less effective against six years worth of posts, imbecile? And it is evident that you two dingbats are the ones who care about ratings spending so much time down rating people you're incapable of defeating in argument,... while I have sent numerous requests to Phys.Org via PM, email, and feedback, asking them to disable the rating system.

It's incredible that you two idiots complain about me countering troll raters all the while actively troll rating others. I have never mass 1-rated another poster unless, in response to such behavior towards me, and to annoy the trolls.

Dec 02, 2013
No. I have seen the thousands of your posts that you have uprated. 60,000 is a very low estimate. You really do ned to get a life.

Expressing my contempt of an ignoramus poster, such as yourself, is not troll rating. It is using the system as it is intended. However, your so-called "countering" is troll rating. 60,000 self votes is gross abuse of the ratings system.
Your slander of members who chose to vote rather than post is juvenile. They are not the trolls here, you are.

So you do finally admit to mass troll-rating of other users when your paranoia perceives they are getting to you, e.g. FrankHerbert, otto, Vendicar.

As to wanting the rating system turned off. It is funny that you have doe a lot of complaining when you encounter someone who has managed to do this.

Dec 02, 2013
I guess you have reading comprehension problems also. I have only been in a rating war with FH, which means FH significantly decreased my activity page rating by mass rating 1's,... to which I responded. That's it.

Everyone knows that open / toot / lite / etc are idiots that only click on 1's irrespective of content of posts, and make a mockery of the rating system. Disable it.

You rated my 1st post here a 1, not for it's content, but because you don't like my political perspective, or posts in general. Wouldn't it be more effective to provide counter arguments that drive-by 1-rating every post I make?

Again, why are you outraged by one who counters a massive 1-attack, but NOT likewise outraged by FH's initial attack on me, nor with open / lite / toot drones? Answer: you are a corrupt imbecile who is no better.

Dec 02, 2013
As to wanting the rating system turned off. It is funny that you have doe a lot of complaining when you encounter someone who has managed to do this.

I'm not complaining that you disabled your activity page. I'm stating that you're a hypocrite for admonishing me for responding to trolls, while at the same time, 1) you troll rate 1's irrespective of individual post content, and 2) you have disabled your own activity page.

You must be associated with Phys.Org, to do that, yes?

As Esteven57 pointed out, there must be some relationship amongst GhostofOtto1923, and FH/BAKOON, and the administration of Phys.Org,... as it is clear that the trolls come out and attack members who post counter arguments and make Ghost look foolish, or the posts get deleted. This is corruption.

Dec 02, 2013
Mimath224, the vast majority of your 1 votes are from Otto's block of assholes or sockpuppets.

toot | Nikolaus | Colombe | VendicarH | NamVet6666 | Zephir_fan | TheSicilian | Blotto | and more
are all GhostofOtto1923's CURRENT voting sockpuppet block
Sorry lover none of those are me. And who can we trust here? Someone who posts crap like this just to get a rise from the object of his affections (me)? Someone who shows up here every day without fail to 1/5 every post I make? Someone whose comments are all about nothing else BUT me? Someone who is a documented liar and corrupter of little girls per my profile page?

Or me?

Honestly, who should we tend to trust more esai?
you have disabled your own activity page.

You must be associated with Phys.Org, to do that, yes?
My god you ARE thick. I explained to you how user input can be altered with the appropriate software before it is returned to the site.

Dec 02, 2013
Noumenon, I have seen you accidentally post with one of the sockpuppets you use to attack otto, so your claim that FrankHerbert was the only person you have troll-rated with your sockpuppet army is yet another of your lies.

Dec 02, 2013
And nou
-if you knew how to manipulate your input you could have saved a LOT of time uprating yourself.
Noumenon, I have seen you accidentally post with one of the sockpuppets you use to attack poor poor otto
WHAT?? That is SO hurtful.
Esteven57 pointed out, there must be some relationship amongst GhostofOtto1923, and FH/BAKOON, and the administration of Phys.Org
I am not frank. I have no relationship to physorg other than to jack up their traffic considerably, which I feel I should be compensated for. And estevan is obviously a sick little twerp whos got a stiffy for me. Why are you listening to him?

Dec 02, 2013
Noumenon, I have seen you accidentally post with one of the sockpuppets you use to attack otto, so your claim that FrankHerbert was the only person you have troll-rated with your sockpuppet army is yet another of your lies.

Categorically false. I have never troll rated Otto, never. Otto actually engages in discussions and provides entertainment. FH is the only one that I know of who has mass troll rated me. I'm not talking about the open / toot/ lite drones,... I'm speaking about decreasing my rating over night. FH has done this several times,.... to which I responded.

you have disabled your own activity page. You must be associated with Phys.Org, to do that, yes?

My god you ARE thick. I explained to you how user input can be altered with the appropriate software before it is returned to the site.

I already told you my 1st job was a programmer, so I know that. I was asking NOM.

Dec 02, 2013

-if you knew how to manipulate your input you could have saved a LOT of time uprating yourself.

Really, jeez I didn't know that //sarcasm. How do you think I defeated the troll FH, as he admitted he 'couldn't compete',.. though he tried at least three occasions.

Esteven57 pointed out, there must be some relationship amongst GhostofOtto1923, and FH/BAKOON, and the administration of Phys.Org

I am not frank. I have no relationship to physorg other than to jack up their traffic considerably, which I feel I should be compensated for. ... Why are you listening to him?

I don't think you are FH or work for Phys.Org, as I mentioned before. BUT, it is clear that you know someone that has administration rights at Phys.Org.

Dec 02, 2013
And you still have the nerve to call anybody a troll rater. It's hardly a "defeat". All you are doing is proving that you are more of a hypocrite that anyone else. Also proving that you don't have a life outside of physorg.
It's quite sad really. I'm not sure whether to feel contempt or pity for you.

Dec 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 02, 2013
And you still have the nerve to call anybody a troll rater. It's hardly a "defeat". All you are doing is proving that you are more of a hypocrite that anyone else. Also proving that you don't have a life outside of physorg.
It's quite sad really. I'm not sure whether to feel contempt or pity for you.

Didn't you just post this not long ago?

It took several hours of non-stop 1/5ing to even make a dent in Noumenon's self inflated average score. A huge number of his posts have been self inflated. I estimate that I 1/5ed him about 4,000 times to make a 0.1 difference in his score. - NOM

To a corrupt mush headed liberal, there is no difference between a perpetrator and a victim who defends.

Dec 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 02, 2013
You can't claim to be a victim here Noumenon. Your thousands of 1/5s to FrankHerbert and tens of thousands of 5/5s to yourself prove you are a ratings troll.

... so, back on topic. Not sure about what the universe is expanding into, but what appears to be driving its expansion is Noumenon's inflated sense of self-worth.

Dec 02, 2013
You can't claim to be a victim here Noumenon. Your thousands of 1/5s to FrankHerbert and tens of thousands of 5/5s to yourself prove you are a ratings troll..

What does that make you for troll rating me when I had never done so to you?,.... answer; worse than me.

Dec 02, 2013
You still don't get it. I'm not troll rating you. I'm using the rating system to evaluate how worthy I perceive your posts.

... Maybe Noumenon's self importance is ahead of the universe, and this is what the universe is expanding into.

Dec 02, 2013
That can't be the case as you 1-rated my 1st post which was purely factual, and have not like rated others with similar quality posts,.... not to mention you have done this many times.

This makes you a corrupt lying troll with a bad memory.

It took several hours of non-stop 1/5ing to even make a dent in Noumenon's self inflated average score. A huge number of his posts have been self inflated. I estimate that I 1/5ed him about 4,000 times to make a 0.1 difference in his score. - NOM

Quoted for posterity.

Dec 02, 2013
You could post that the Earth orbits the Sun and I'd still 1/5 you. Doesn't make me a troll. Just because you don't agree with how I rate you, doesn't mean that cancelling it out with several of your sockpuppets isn't hypocritical.

Dec 02, 2013
You could post that the Earth orbits the Sun and I'd still 1/5 you. Doesn't make me a troll.

Since the above post was in context, that is precisely what a rating troll IS.

Just because you don't agree with how I rate you, doesn't mean that cancelling it out with several of your sockpuppets isn't hypocritical.

If you are not evaluating each individual post on their own merits and rating accordingly, as you have admitted, ....then you are not using the comment rating system as it was intended,... to which I thus justify canceling it out as invalid.

My actions are logical and in response, yours are corrupt and dishonest.

Dec 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 02, 2013
I already told you my 1st job was a programmer, so I know that. I was asking NOM
Im thinking this was a long time ago, before there was the internet and when you punched cards? Am I right?
I don't think you are FH or work for Phys.Org, as I mentioned before. BUT, it is clear that you know someone that has administration rights at Phys.Org
Thats absurd. I dont even live in britain.

Dec 02, 2013
Since the above post was in context, that is precisely what a rating troll IS.
No. Your definition appears to be anyone who ever votes you a 1/5. Since this doesn't meet with your delusions of adequacy, you then go an up-rate it.

My actions are logical and in response, yours are corrupt and dishonest.
Wrong. I don't like you, or your posts, so I vote you a 1. That is being honest. You don't like me, go ahead and vote me down. That is being vindictive, but it too is being honest. However, your self-inflating of your rating is being dishonest.

Dec 02, 2013
OK. Might have a point about the "corrupt" bit.

Dec 03, 2013
As interesting as this discussion is, maybe I could interrupt with a request for a bit of assistance.

When discussing the various inflation models, a student recently posited a very interesting question to me. I admit that I had no good answer to it. Basically what he suggested was this:

1) Assuming an ultra-dense initial state (singularity) prior to the "big bang". With a "mechanism" which began expansion with inflation.

2) Then assume that we observe accelerating expansion in the current era. For the sake of considering this idea, assume that inflation and the current expansion are mechanisms which are closely related phenomena.

3) Assume that at the center of a black hole there exists a singularity with the same conditions as in the pre-big bang state. Matter reduced to pure energy.

Could the big bang mechanism operate on the black hole singularity? What would we observe? Could such a process be tied in any way to what we observe as "dark energy"/accelerating expansion?

Dec 03, 2013
All I could respond with is that it sounded like a big bang with a steady state component. That the only way such a thing could go unobserved is if it was only happening at the edges of the edgeless universe outside of our viewing horizon of 13.7 Gly.

But then I got to thinking,,,,,,,,,,

Dec 03, 2013
That we're in a BH?

All I could respond with is that it sounded like a big bang with a steady state component.

Would it still be considered steady state, if no 'extra' mass/energy is created, that is, in addition to that forming the BH/space-time From the 'parent' BB/BH?

Also, if it is true that the entropy is higher in a BH than the BB, and proportional to its horizon area, how fast before the recursiveness would 'peter out'?

I don't think singularities are conceptually clear enough. Maybe a cyclic BB model that avoids them would lead to insights of BH,... kind of the reverse. Don't know.

What were you thinking?

Dec 03, 2013
Q-Star, what do you mean by "What would we observe"? Doesn't the No Hair Theorem entail that no information originating inside a BH can cross its radius to an outside observer?

In addition I would suggest that a BH is a closed system for thermodybamics purposes, so the additional net effect of the possible forces you describe should not be perceptible to an outside observer.

In other words although a BH has finite mass and non-zero temperature, I suggest that no calculation could be made to apportion the effects in question on these values. Or am I missing something else you have in mind?

Dec 03, 2013
Q-Star, what do you mean by "What would we observe"? Doesn't the No Hair Theorem entail that no information originating inside a BH can cross its radius to an outside observer?

If the singularity in a black hole is the same thing as the singularity pre-big bang, only on a much smaller scale, could the event that caused the "big bang" also happen in a black hole, a mini-big bang?

In addition I would suggest that a BH is a closed system for thermodybamics purposes, so the additional net effect of the possible forces you describe should not be perceptible to an outside observer.

True with KNOWN physics, but physics on the planck scale? The initial inflationary era had that same constraint.

Or am I missing something else you have in mind?

If the universe's initial state were the SAME as state of the matter-energy in a black hole, and if the same process (big bang) were to start in the mass-energy in the black hole, what would we observe? A mini big bang?

Dec 03, 2013
That we're in a BH?

No. 1) We are in a lamba CDM universe. With a finite amount of mass-energy. 2) In the center of a black hole is a finite amount of mass-energy. 3) Does the universe's initial state (singularity) have the same physical attributes of a black hole's singularity. 4) If the two singularities are in fact the same state of mass-energy, could they undergo the same physical processes, with only the scale being the difference. Big bang (universe) verses Mini bang (black hole)?

If the laws of physics operate the same everywhere in the universe. Then it is possible that a mini bang could emerge from within the mass-energy of the black hole singularity. Unless there is some unknown constraint which discriminates between the two types of singularity. I really hate that word, I much prefer "initial condition" but for the purpose of posing the question, it will do.

Dec 03, 2013
I don't propose that we are in a BH, I just read your previous post as hinting that...... It is a very interesting idea.

@#3, Other than that the initial BB had lower entropy at start, than a BH would within the same space-time,... it is entirely unclear what a singularity is, at present.

Since the initial BB created space-time, I would wonder along with Animah above, what observer you are making reference to that would witness the supposed BH mini-bang? It is why I assumed you meant to imply we are in a BH, if the mechanisms are the same, and 'it was only happening at the edges of our universe'.

I would think the observer would have to be restricted to the mini-bang, it would be his universe with his own separate space-time, like we are restricted to our own space-time.

Dec 03, 2013
@#3, Other than that the initial BB had lower entropy at start, than a BH would within the same space-time,... it is entirely unclear what a singularity is, at present.

That's why I really dislike the term as used commonly today.I like it's original context:"We don't know what's going on here."

Since the initial BB created space-time, I would wonder along with Animah above, what observer you are making reference to that would witness the supposed BH mini-bang?

Created spacetime? It operated on spacetime. We can't really say it "created" spacetime.

it would be his universe with his own separate space-time, like we are restricted to our own space-time.

Is our spacetime, our universe constrained to exclude the mass-energy undergoing the same processes taking place during the big bang? Can't the two events happen in the same universe? Many think that the early inflation is the same as the dark energy driving acceleration. Could it happen again on a BH scale?

Dec 03, 2013
If the universe's initial state were the SAME as state of the matter-energy in a black hole, and if the same process (big bang) were to start in the mass-energy in the black hole, what would we observe? A mini big bang?

Physics assumes that if the same initial conditions exist with the same processes (laws), then the same thing would be expected to occur.

If the supposed BH mini bang occurred within our observable space-time, I think we would observe nothing different than we do now wrt BH's. However there is the highly speculative notion of a 'white hole', which certainly has not been witnessed yet.

Dec 03, 2013
Since the initial BB created space-time, I would wonder along with Animah above, what observer you are making reference to that would witness the supposed BH mini-bang?

Created spacetime? It operated on spacetime. We can't really say it "created" spacetime.

Can you explain this distinction, this is new to me? There was no pre-existing space-time for the DE inflationary mechanism to 'operate on', but created it by definition of the expansion (is my present and possibly faulty understanding). The cosmological constant which is a function of space-time, may be the DE, yes?

Dec 03, 2013
Can you explain this distinction, this is new to me? There was no pre-existing space-time for the DE inflationary mechanism to 'operate on', but created it by definition of the expansion (is my present and possibly faulty understanding). The cosmological constant which is a function of space-time, may be the DE, yes?

The distinction is at the plank era, we have no idea about the state of spacetime during that era. All we can infer is what took place from 10^minus43 seconds. The plank era could have started billions of years before the place we start counting time at 10^minus43 seconds.

The lambda is the cosmological constant. It is the dark energy driving the observed expansion. It is also the energy which drove the early inflation in many current models. If they are the same thing, could it not operate on the BH singularity in the same way it did during the inflationary period?

I don't know, but I thought it was a good question by a sophomore physics student.

Dec 03, 2013
I don't know either but:

- AFAIK the Penrose-Hawking theorems don't solve to both a BH and the BB.

- The fact that the end of the null geodesics that lead into a singularity are called "pathologies" is a kind of a dead giveway that we don't have maths for what happens there :-)

As both of you implied this was a nice speculative moment.