Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[JimL]

No, I don't think anything physical can exist outside of space.

So then, where would you say that "space," i.e. our physical universe exists, and what is it expanding into?

[carpedm9587]

So then, where would you say that "space," i.e. our physical universe exists, and what is it expanding into?

Well...if space is the relationship between object...then past the furthestmost object in the universe there is literally nothing. If there is no "next object," then there is no space. Which means the universe is expanding - but not necessarily expanding "into" anything. It's just expanding. As objects move away from each other, space is changed.

I see no reason why that wouldn't fit into the relativity model - but I have to confess I am a neophyte physicist practicing advanced astrophysics without a license.

[seer]

So then, where would you say that "space," i.e. our physical universe exists, and what is it expanding into?

We have no idea if it is expanding into anything. If there is some kind void, where your quantum stuff existed that created the universe, then we are back to a classical view of space.

[seer]

but I have to confess I am a neophyte physicist practicing advanced astrophysics without a license.

That should be illegal!

[JimL]

Well...if space is the relationship between object...then past the furthestmost object in the universe there is literally nothing. If there is no "next object," then there is no space. Which means the universe is expanding - but not necessarily expanding "into" anything. It's just expanding. As objects move away from each other, space is changed.

I think that it makes no sense to say that the universe is expanding into nothing. Then you would have to ask yourself what exactly it is that you mean by "nothing." Do you have any idea's concerning "nothing?"

I see no reason why that wouldn't fit into the relativity model - but I have to confess I am a neophyte physicist practicing advanced astrophysics without a license.

We are obviously, none of us here, experts in the field, but that can't stop us from thinking.

[carpedm9587]

I think that it makes no sense to say that the universe is expanding into nothing. Then you would have to ask yourself what exactly it is that you mean by "nothing." Do you have any idea's concerning "nothing?"

I think you need to let go of the idea of "expanding into." If you blow up a balloon, it is expanding and displacing air - it is expanding "into the air." I think people try to apply that to the universe, and it doesn't work. If the universe is "all that is" and it is expanding - to say it is expanding "into" something suggests that there is something other than the universe, but since we just defined the universe as "everything that exists," that's a contradiction.

We are obviously, none of us here, experts in the field, but that can't stop us from thinking.

True dat.

[shunyadragon]

I have explained my skepticism of the multiverse from a scientific perspective. My opinion is a scientific one and I have the credential, experience, and CV to back it up...how about you?

Unlike yourself, I am a real scientist... not a pretend scientist.

By your 'ex-spurt opinions' so far you do not measure up to Vilenkin, Hawking, and the others I cited. I am not the issue that you are playing ad hominem games with, it is the qualified physicists, and cosmologists that you have no comperable qualifications. I demonstrated your religious agenda by directly citing your previous posts.

[element771]

By your 'ex-spurt opinions' so far you do not measure up to Vilenkin, Hawking, and the others I cited. I am not the issue that you are playing ad hominem games with, it is the qualified physicists, and cosmologists that you have no comperable qualifications. I demonstrated your religious agenda by directly citing your previous posts.

Stating that currently the best supported model in science for the origin of the universe is the BB theory?

That is my religious agenda?

If you think that supports a religious agenda, you are an idiot.

[seer]

you are an idiot.

It finally dawned on you!

[element771]

It finally dawned on you!

I have known this for a long time but I am stubborn.

[37818]

I would say more energy but E=mc^2 so...

Without mass energy is not defined.

[seer]

I have known this for a long time but I am stubborn.

So you are a masochist?

[JimL]

I think you need to let go of the idea of "expanding into." If you blow up a balloon, it is expanding and displacing air - it is expanding "into the air." I think people try to apply that to the universe, and it doesn't work. If the universe is "all that is" and it is expanding - to say it is expanding "into" something suggests that there is something other than the universe, but since we just defined the universe as "everything that exists," that's a contradiction.

But I never defined our universe as being "all that there is." My contention is that there is no such thing as "nothing" in the conventional sense of the term. Therefore, outside of our universe, or beyond that part of it which we can observe, there is either more space, or, there is a spaceless vacuum of non-zero energy into which our universe expands and out of which our universe was born. If we start with the premise that our universe is all that there is, then we are stuck with the odd idea that the universe not only emerged from out of nothing, but that it is expanding even though there is no existing something, no place, which it can expand into.

[carpedm9587]

But I never defined our universe as being "all that there is." My contention is that there is no such thing as "nothing" in the conventional sense of the term. Therefore, outside of our universe, or beyond that part of it which we can observe, there is either more space, or, there is a spaceless vacuum of non-zero energy into which our universe expands and out of which our universe was born. If we start with the premise that our universe is all that there is, then we are stuck with the odd idea that the universe not only emerged from out of nothing, but that it is expanding even though there is no existing something, no place, which it can expand into.

I think you are trying to define what is "outside" the universe. You have as much problem there as you have defining what is "before" the universe. We have no clue of knowing if those terms apply in any way. I have less difficulty accepting that the universe is "simply expanding" and letting go of "into something" than somehow trying to wrap my mind around an endless empty space with nothing in it (so what exactly is it, then?) and I have no idea what a "spaceless vacuum of non-zero energy" means. If the energy is non-zero, I assume it is energy - and E=MC^2 tells me energy and matter are interchangeable - so how is that any different from the rest of the universe?

[JonathanL]

But I never defined our universe as being "all that there is." My contention is that there is no such thing as "nothing" in the conventional sense of the term. Therefore, outside of our universe, or beyond that part of it which we can observe, there is either more space, or, there is a spaceless vacuum of non-zero energy into which our universe expands and out of which our universe was born. If we start with the premise that our universe is all that there is, then we are stuck with the odd idea that the universe not only emerged from out of nothing, but that it is expanding even though there is no existing something, no place, which it can expand into.

But if there's nothing beyond our universe, wouldn't that simply mean that there is nothing that could hinder the universe from expanding? Because if you say that space cannot expand into nothing you're saying that there is some attribute of nothing that stops space from expanding in to it. But nothing is the complete absence of things, it's not a thing in itself, and as such cannot have any attributes. If there is nothing outside of the universe, then there is nothing in the way of the universe's expansion.