What is the Universe expanding into..

[fas42]

There would be some pretty horrific universes if nightmares are anything to go by..the creation of matter by thought.
Perhaps not..😀

Yes, perhaps not ... . Why do children get such pleasure from scaring themselves, they almost deliberately seek out scary things, and shriek with a combination of fear and glee when the bogey man menaces, 🙂. Teenagers aim for the scariest, most malevolent, terror filled movies to catch with the date ... humans delight in the "bad stuff" ...

So, consider that 'thought' might actually have "fun" creating nightmare scenarios - because if the physical is not 'real' then anything that happens is always an illusion, at some level - the most horrific circumstances are merely a form of playacting - at the end of the scary movie one comes out into the bright light of day, and everything is still in place, as it always has been, as it always will be ....

 

[MITsound]

😕..fantasy for a brief moment...

There would be some pretty horrific universes if nightmares are anything to go by..the creation of matter by thought.
Perhaps not..😀

😀..like draws like..when you die you go to the universe that is closest to your thoughts..sounds like another film..
We are forging our pathway..we are hear to learn<<<good job its just for fun.
Back to topic I don't want to contemplate this idea..

Regards
M. Gregg

Some random thoughts- we can't tell if we're real or not, because all our means of proof are as real or unreal as ourselves.

In the context of a dream, the dream seems real, as it exists in accordance with its own rules- fell off a cliff? No problem, just dive into the earth and swim back to the surface.
Werewolf attack? No problem, just become immaterial until it gets tired and leaves.
Want a close look at a photon? Okay, that one's a problem, every time I got near , it seemed to evaporate...
But it seems real while we're dreaming.
So what if we view our lives as some kind of dream, or some kind of film?
One should bear in mind, not everyone has the same tastes in films- horror, romance, epic, historical, comedic, war, nature, etc. all are enjoyed by some,some even more so because we know it's not "real".
I now remember an interesting idea from a Richard Bach novel, titled Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah.
The protagonist posited we create this life and this here for only 2 reasons -education, or entertainment.
Everything we sense in any way may be categorized within those headings.
It's probably 30 years or more since I read the book, but looking back on it now, I think it's a better read than I realized at the time .

 

[fas42]

I now remember an interesting idea from a Richard Bach novel, titled Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah.
The protagonist posited we create this life and this here for only 2 reasons -education, or entertainment.
Everything we sense in any way may be categorized within those headings.
It's probably 30 years or more since I read the book, but looking back on it now, I think it's a better read than I realized at the time .

... an entertaining intro to these concepts ..

 

[MITsound]

Yes, perhaps not ... . Why do children get such pleasure from scaring themselves, they almost deliberately seek out scary things, and shriek with a combination of fear and glee when the bogey man menaces, 🙂. Teenagers aim for the scariest, most malevolent, terror filled movies to catch with the date ... humans delight in the "bad stuff" ...

So, consider that 'thought' might actually have "fun" creating nightmare scenarios - because if the physical is not 'real' then anything that happens is always an illusion, at some level - the most horrific circumstances are merely a form of playacting - at the end of the scary movie one comes out into the bright light of day, and everything is still in place, as it always has been, as it always will be ....

 

[MITsound]

Just say no to expansion

🙄
The key words in no expansion of universe searches seem to be surface brightness.
More distant galaxies' surface brightness is more than allowable in an expanding universe. In fact they should be so dim as to be undetectable with current equipment, yet, there they are, flaunting their comparatively undiminished (compared to nearer galaxies) surface brightness.
Red shift still occurs, but this isn't yet understood.

 

[M Gregg]

Laniakea..

For interest..
Earth's new address: 'Solar System, Milky Way, Laniakea' : Nature News & Comment

Regards
M. Gregg

 

[benb]

Laniakea..

For interest..
Earth's new address: 'Solar System, Milky Way, Laniakea' : Nature News & Comment

Regards
M. Gregg

So the supercluster the Milky Way is in is TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE larger than previously thought???

I can only wonder how astronomers and astrophysicists can make such colossal mistakes and still keep their jobs.

 

[M Gregg]

My child side can't help but think,

Does the picture of Laniakea look like a super nova?

The Great Attractor makes me think of a bar magnet..expanding and contracting at the same time..😕

Is it possible that the Universe could be expanding and contracting at the same time?
A bit like the bar magnet contraction at the poles and expansion between..LOL oh look a projection of energy..

Its just for a laugh but that would put the magnet at the centre of the bubble universe with the galaxies on the outer skin..

Put the bar magnet in a 3D picture and you have a bubble of energy with what looks like attractors at both ends..
The universe would then be a projection of something else..at the centre of the bubble..😀
You even have the layers or dimensions..
It would be impossible to travel between layers without having to go via the poles LOL Black holes.. sorry couldn't resist the temptation..

The bar magnet is the middle picture..iron filings etc.

Just for fun the magnetic field is made of virtual photons..they appear and gone just as fast as they appear..something from nothing..
with energy "Fizzing" within the skin of the bubble..

Regards
M. Gregg

 

[M Gregg]

Just for fun again,

Brain theory with the membranes being the magnet poles..which in itself "the branes" being yet another line of force (or skin)around another bubble..😀😕

A fractal of interlocking bubbles..the foam..a bit like the Olympic rings in 3D...or as somebody said to me the wave front of reality..
Suddenly pictures of interlocking circles has a new meaning for me..and its everywhere..from jewellery, algebra to symbolism..

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

LMAO just a couple of circles..the shaded bit (the universe)..😀..I'm going to have to stop because I just thought of yin and yang..

Regards
M. Gregg

 

[M Gregg]

LOL,

the image between speakers that isn't really there...😀
Enter the twilight zone music..

Regards
M.Gregg

 

[M Gregg]

I thought I would post this it crossed my mind,

ALL THAT I AM..

It stands to reason if E=MC2
Everything is energy and possibly everything that is energy could be an interaction of fields..

Then a few peoples comments..

A Buddhist Monk..

Everything means nothing and nothing is everything..

If the universe was some kind of projection..

Then so am I..

Is every thought an interaction of fields of energy?

If it is then who am I...

If life is "Made From" particles and those particles are energy..then I am energy..if energy is an interaction of E=MC2 then I am a result of this equation..

So what are my thoughts and dreams...

I am part of the universe however the universe is energy..energy is part of nothing..so what are thoughts and dreams..a long pause..

Its one of those moments in time which is also part of the universe.
A reflection of nothing..how do I reflect..

There is no dark side of the moon really..as a matter of fact its all dark..(Pink Floyd)

Regards
M. Gregg

 

[M Gregg]

I was thinking about bubbles..😀 a moment of stupidity..just for fun!

This idea of how the dimensions could interact..its just for fun. The universe would be represented as "only" the conjunction of the bubbles.
Anything not conjoined would not be a part that could be detected. Only interaction would be seen.
.

The Idea of a one dimensional universe can't exist in the model (no conjunction or interaction). With the universe being at the point of contact of the bubbles which represent the dimensions.
I was not sure how time would be placed interacting with the three dimensions or outside interacting with the others that make up the eleven of string theory..😕

The interesting thing is in the model if time is interacting only with the three dimensions the others get strange and don't have a matter relationship. ie they are outside of time so they would seem to exist but don't exist in relation to the universe at the centre which is moving in time..😕😀
Interestingly the dimensions get more and more ethereal perhaps infinity would be a dimension in its own right? The brains being the outer skin/edge of the bubble.

Regards
M. Gregg

 

[M Gregg]

I'm still,

undecided about the size (Diameter) of the yellow circle time (could it be variable?)"relative", because the speed of time is variable we assume linked to the speed of light. So if the circle expanded could other dimensions become real<<ie perceived..no longer outside of time.
(spin / photon)<<possible force carriers/energy exchange.

😀 oh look at the strange symbols on that alien space ship..LMAO

I guess in the model time would be the barrier between dimensions..if at the speed of light time stopped the other dimensions would be perceivable the diameter would expand, however you would be frozen in time and be unable to detect them. The only things perceivable would be the interactions within the time "Barrier"..
LOL the speed of time..The speed of light..the speed of sound..The speed of a particle..For want of better words..

Just a thought..
I assume when you die time stops?

Regards
M. Gregg

 

[M Gregg]

Just a reflection,

Looking at the model..

It would seem the model has three 2D universes each creating a Brane..(not intentional)

The 2D universe generates a dimension.. this interacts with other generated dimensions from the other 2D universes projecting a 3D universe..
It would appear that time does not exist in the 2D universes..so they could be infinite.

The 3 Dimensions together generate time.😀

The yellow circle represents time dilation..😀

I now notice the model is not complete..if the 2D universe generated the dimension on one side whats on the other..I'm thinking that the two D intersection
should look like a bar magnet..with another loop on the other side, but then it would generate another universe if exposed to other branes..and you would end up with a foam of universes generating more and more..

The energy required is an issue and would have to come from an infinity dimension<<Humm the splitting of something from nothing..

Regards
M. Gregg

 

[Binely]

I tend to think we our perception of reality is supported by the the adjacent dimensions that strongly and weakly interact with our own primary set of dimensions that we ordinarily believe we exist in.

Our ability to prove our general ideas have such wide variations in sample reliability due to the limits of our tools on hand that a reliable result is not yet possible.

If we could predict all the weather patterns to a degree above 90% confidence over a 5 day period then maybe we have it nailed. That means we would only have to understand and map out all the interactions in space converging and moving through one light "week?!". But that capability is nearly an infinite measure beyond our means.

Our own experience and wide surface upon which to sample and compare our scientific understanding demonstrates we are not even close to a reliable framework.

For now, we are without sight, tumbling through space, grasping for a flashlight that may or may not exist at any given point in time, in a room of undefined size, with our hand out, unaware of our own speed, rotation rate and azimuth.

We are stardust, and that's all we know for sure, and we are moving with the universe as it will.

 

[Disco-Pete]

I tend to think we our perception of reality is supported by the the adjacent dimensions that strongly and weakly interact with our own primary set of dimensions that we ordinarily believe we exist in.

Our ability to prove our general ideas have such wide variations in sample reliability due to the limits of our tools on hand that a reliable result is not yet possible.

If we could predict all the weather patterns to a degree above 90% confidence over a 5 day period then maybe we have it nailed. That means we would only have to understand and map out all the interactions in space converging and moving through one light "week?!". But that capability is nearly an infinite measure beyond our means.

Our own experience and wide surface upon which to sample and compare our scientific understanding demonstrates we are not even close to a reliable framework.

For now, we are without sight, tumbling through space, grasping for a flashlight that may or may not exist at any given point in time, in a room of undefined size, with our hand out, unaware of our own speed, rotation rate and azimuth.

We are stardust, and that's all we know for sure, and we are moving with the universe as it will.

And let us be thankful for that.

 

[M Gregg]

I tend to think we our perception of reality is supported by the the adjacent dimensions that strongly and weakly interact with our own primary set of dimensions that we ordinarily believe we exist in.

Our ability to prove our general ideas have such wide variations in sample reliability due to the limits of our tools on hand that a reliable result is not yet possible.

If we could predict all the weather patterns to a degree above 90% confidence over a 5 day period then maybe we have it nailed. That means we would only have to understand and map out all the interactions in space converging and moving through one light "week?!". But that capability is nearly an infinite measure beyond our means.

Our own experience and wide surface upon which to sample and compare our scientific understanding demonstrates we are not even close to a reliable framework.

For now, we are without sight, tumbling through space, grasping for a flashlight that may or may not exist at any given point in time, in a room of undefined size, with our hand out, unaware of our own speed, rotation rate and azimuth.

We are stardust, and that's all we know for sure, and we are moving with the universe as it will.

After reading your post,

I asked myself the question,
What happens if you replace the "U" in the universe model (post 1552#)with "L or M"
L = Life and M=mind?

Both life and mind are part of the universe..so I assume they are dependant on the interaction of fields or dimensions. (generated by them)?
ie are we 3 dimensional beings or multi dimensional?

Regards
M. Gregg

 

[Binely]

Humm... that's a good question. I looked at 1552, couldn't really substitute the values mentally.

Life, is what appears to be an illusion in some ways as we describe it. Meaning, there is no difference in the behavior of organisms that happen to exhibit thought, versus ones that demonstrate individual decision making ability. In other words, viruses are just as relentless in their adaptation as we are because they are successful in reproduction, even if there was no intent behind their random mutation.

Alan Turing might have something to lend to that. Wish he were still with us. I'll bet some microbiologists would have some opinion as to that.

Essentially, our senses appear to be a bad facsimile of a periscope that only lets one image through at a time.

What seems unique to our experience is that we contemplate amongst ourselves the possibility of our limited perception. And as a result, perhaps our observations may interact weakly. Meaning that in some fields, the observation of a result directly impacts the reading versus not. And in others, some interactions aren't able to be modeled with the idea of time moving forwards with our current experience.

However, these interactions appear fleeting, and weak so I can only assume that it's a bit like scratching at the screen on your laptop. The more we scratch, the less congruent the image at times and we get "spooky" aka strange behaviors.

But also like the forces that assemble an image, we can't reach through the screen, because there is not a way to percieve direct two way interaction. It appears that if as some postulate that we are just information interacting on a great spherical surface at a distance, might have some weight or a glimmer of fact tied to it.

It would be like as if we were in the screen, but can't understand that it is one because the related dimensions don't have to be visible to us, because our perception can't represent them in a meaningful way. A circle in two dimensions is flat, in three dimensions a sphere, in 4 dimensions, a persistent one and the 5th? Since we are locked to 3 dimensions of visual perception, it's a fatal error.


That's why math is better.

 

[MITsound]

Anyone think Einstein's hope for a marble grand universal theory of everything couldn't be achieved , not because it can't be, but because its not yet possible to determine the existence of dimensions which interact with those we live in, and therefore chart the effects of any such interactions?
Furthermore , is it possible the results from hadron collider events produce particles so tiny that the possible other universes' effects could be detected, and perhaps repeated reliably?
Maybe the goal could not simply be how small a particle can be created before it simply reverts to wave energy, but instead, how can one create a particle small enough to be reactive to otherwise undetectable forces from other universes.

 

[Binely]

Okay this is completely made up. I am completely not qualified, and would love some insight as to who to read to get more information on this.

I think we are seeing the effects of those other dimensions even now. We have high energy collisions, we see the paths they take. We can calculate them, and measure them. Those interactions are in space, and in space we are interacting on an unknown level that is probably not reasonably discernable from our own in a way that allows direct interaction.

For example. We can draw with an etch a sketch, in 2 dimensions. Say now, you are in that etch a sketch. A two dimensional object. You can be acted upon, and you can move within those dimensions, but the only thing they will ever translate to are the x and y knob rotating in a 3 dimensional existence. Crude, terribly inaccurate but it's the way I can build a paradigm around that question.

So if we exist in 3 dimensions in time, and say we are acted upon by the 4th (the arrow), and all higher dimensions, how can we reasonably expect to reach up and out of our own space? So if QM usually has to use the arrow going in reverse, maybe what we are modeling is not time going backwards but the reflection of time moving away from us, like the stretching of a bubble moving past us.

So maybe what we are assuming that the arrow time is always forwards, in reality, the 4th dimension is really a falling through a 5th dimension, a bubble expanding like our own universe. Kind of like a derivative of a higher dimension. So if the universe is expanding at a higher rate over time and our 4th dimension experience is really just the derivative of that information then perhaps the 5th dimension has a state that already contemplates the end state of our own beginning, but as a derivative is merely just a function of that end state as it catches up.

So if we exist in 3 dimensions, that sounds interesting, as a derivative of spacetime, that outside of time, we only exist as a function of "matter" outside constrained by it, but only able to act in 3 dimensions while spacetime continues to derivate from a 5th dimension... like a concentric circle curling behind the depression of water as a boat hull cuts the water on plane. Just bubbles, degenerating into nothing...

The problem is really that we can't discern what should be here in only 3 dimensions, and what the properties of spacetime would be if there weren't other dimensions. It's not what we see, it's what we shouldn't see.

So what is it in two dimensions, that we see, that we don't see in 3? Maybe that would help isolate the effects of higher dimensions.

Interesting completely made up crap. So if we are the derivative of spacetime, then maybe the universe didn't start from a big bang, it started when time did, and like a solution that solids can aggregate from, the big bang was jus the byproduct of the beginning of time deriving into 3 dimensions, but there was no space then, so all that mass couldn't exist at the same point in space and "BANG". Space just happened because matter couldn't exist all piled up on itself.

But than then begs the question if E=MC^2, then is Time = Energy? Or is Time just our experience of of it as Energy decays into Time? I would ideate that E is not time, but it is what is left over if we remove (obliterate) the mass from our 3 dimensions. So the energy in an atom, then is the potential that is aggregate from that higher dimension (5th) and so that's why we we are restricted by conservation of energy, because all the energy in our 3 dimensions that can be here, is here. We can't access a 5th dimension, and it is in a state that to us seems static. Even if it is fluid, we are isolated by our own cage of perception.