Can things exist outside of the universe?

We all say the universe is big because it contains everything; but...

What if; there is something existing and it's not in the universe?

Is that impossible?

 

I suggest that if the definition of the universe it the concept where everything exits, then, it relies on what the definition what what everything then means. If, for example, you include in the concept of "everything" the thought experiment of multiverse or multi dimensional existence, the everything is still included within the parameter of universe. If everything doesn't include everything, the word soup doesn't logically conform.

 

The term "multiverse" refers to multiple separate universes.

 

Our science can not answer for how our universe started or what is "outside" our universe. The big bang takes over only AFTER that start. So, a major question is what is the bigger picture.

This is approached by theoretical physics, physicists that extend what we know using mathmatical models (since testing is not possible, due to limitations of our technology today). So, we get ideas like string theory, multiverse theory, and various kinds of energy fields.

Today's theoretical physics uniformly agrees that our universe is not all that exists. It's just absolutely everything that we can possibly detect with all our ability to detect stuff.

These theories from theoretical physics are NOT like our theories of science - evolution, relativity, etc. Our theories of science (as opposed to theoretical physics) CAN be tested and are seriously tested every single day, so far proving themselves against all testing. NO idea from theoretical physics is like that.

This issue of testability is a HUGE and highly important divide. Scientific method FULLY depends on repeated and highly reviewed testing and observation - something not possible in theoretical physics.

Theoretical physics does have a huge part to play, as it can guide scintists on where to look.

One would hope theoretical physics can some day show the way for physicists to find evidence of stuff outside our universe.

 

There's a perspective called "relativity" which says that things like what you are postulating are a moot point.

There would be no way we could ever know, and it will not affect us in anyway.

However, there could be ways in which things outside of the universe could affect the universe. There might be an interaction with the wave-like nature but not the particle-like nature, for example.

Your question would have to clarify more.

Understanding things that we will never see could also help explain the things we do see.

 

I know nothing about physics but offer this https://www.newscientist.com/articl...lider-finally-challenged-the-laws-of-physics/

 

Yet, the tests of our science like evolution have not been proven. There are no signs of actual evolution from one species to another. No missing links of observation as well. Just a lot of conjecture and a lot of "fuzzy" words used like "maybe," "might be," "Thought to be" and many others found in scientific journals, magazines, books, TV shows...
Relativity works in the big picture of the universe but falls apart in the small minute works of physics. Much of methods of dating rocks and things doesn't work well at all. Bones of man and foot prints of man amongst the layers of supposedly 150 million years ago confuse scientists and are unexplained. God only knows.

 

OK, two issues here:
- science has NO method of proving anything to be true. It doesn't work that way. Proving someting to be true would require humans to know everything. Remember Newton? He made advances in understanding gravity. But, his ideas fail under circumstances that could not be known at the time, but are well known today - relativity.

Science works by proving bad answers to be false (falsification) as fast as humanly possible, NOT by proving anything to be true. Science CAN prove an answer is false.

Because of this aspect of how science works, real scientists almost NEVER make positive statements claiming to know how something works. So, you do here qualified answers, because THAT is how science is designed.

- With evolution, there is testing of this theory every single day of every single year, as evolution theory is a foundation of all biological sciences. And, there is NO competing answer.

Yes, the largest issue in physics today is the conflict between Einstein's theory and quantum mechanics.

But, let's be extremely careful how far we stretch that toward impugning results of science. Let's remember, too, that it is science that identifies these cases and immediatly makes them known to the world in minute detail.

Relativity theory has been fabulously solid for more than 100 years of careful testing. Again, the problem you mention drives physicists to test relativity theory with extreme effort and every single day. ALL results from this testing are available to everyone throughout the world. Science doesn't know country borders and requires oepnness for progress.

Dating is a VERY different issue.

There are large numbers of dating methods. They work effectively within various limitations of age and site composition. And, various methods have different degrees of accuracy/precision. Any claim that a dating method doesn't work is almost totally based on these limitations. Dating iitself is a highly serious field of study. Science is always pushing forward on improving dating methodology. And, it's also the case that material that has been dated in the past is available for retesting by scientists who continue to study topics where dated maerial is important.

Every scientist working on dating a specific sample uses many dating technologies, as this allows for confirmation and detetion of characteristics that might be affecting a result.

So, while there are elements of truth in what you say, you need to be more careful in the conclusions you draw.

 

Sure it’s possible. Discussions about it sometimes revolve around the cosmological argument, or first cause argument. Did the universe always exist? If not what caused it to come into existence. Following this line of thinking you work your way back to the first cause which has no cause of its own.

 

Short and to the point - I like it!

 

Little could top that one on the bullshit scale.

Proof you are NOT a scientist? Or for that matter academically capable of making statements to that regard?

False, the largest issue in physics today is disposing of weenie boy as a god.

Oh yeh? Well I made a thread just for you and other weenie worshipers, to prove all those bullshit claims you think you can throw around as facts and took note you did not so much as comment.

Look everyone no comments http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-false-god-s-of-physics.586429/

The least you can do is put your money where your keyboard is, unless of course you know your claims you are false, then the last thing you and the other two want to do is show up in a thread designed to PROVE your claims are patently false.

 

Great comedy!

But, it's not aging well at all.

 

which universe?
Like so many other words being destroyed today so is it.
you have the centuries old meaning that includes everything that is possible.
you have the ancient one where it was the earth and the firmament.
the modern version usually refers to the universe we can identify, so like the romans people today only accept a universe as far as they can see over their noses.

In math we cold talk about an infinite number of universes as we add 'dimensions' and of course people are led to believe they can live in all sorts of dimensions just like many think they can travel through time lol

 

Nice I accept your concession!

 

Is there an outside the Universe? If there is an outside of the Universe, then something has to exist.

 

So do the old universe-earth believers. Both old and new universe-earth scientists use the same data. Yet I find one group unyielding and involved with slandering name calling. That would be the old universe-earthers.
Dating methodologies all start at the point of belief in old earth. Then, the science is forced into the wrong conclusions of Bones and rocks being way older than they may be. Why not look at the information from a young earth perspective and watch the dating change dramatically.

 

Of course it is POSSIBLE, with the caveat, this is the biggest bucket of which I can conceive.

For example, imagine the UNIVERSE as a BODY, of which we are all part: cells, if you will. To us, this body is all-encompassing. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the possibility of other "universal," bodies, walking around out there, of whose existences we do not partake.

This calls up my recollection of a very interesting notion I once heard which, to my mind, holds an exceedingly beautiful symmetry. The scientist was considering the question of where all the matter, sucked into a black hole, goes. His speculative (& artistic) thought was that it might become the seed of a NEW Universe-- hey, we still have no idea where the initial, pre-Bang matter, in our own universe, came from-- so that black holes would actually be a Universe's means of REPRODUCTION. Following that line of thought, the imaginative scientist said that the most successful universes, then, would be the ones with the MOST BLACK HOLES!

But, getting back to, more directly, addressing your question, I need to mention some shortcomings of your 1st reply (which is as far as I've, thus far, read). @drluggit tries to apply logic, to attack things from a grammatical angle. Based simply on your suggesting that there could be anything outside our universe's walls, it is clear that you are interpreting the word differently than he. Pragmatism, therefore, should have suggested he take an alternate tack.

In this case, whether or not T.R.O.L.'s word-choice is correct, is not so cut & dried, since anything extra-universal would not conform with our current knowledge of, "the universe." And since this laymen's term is also a scientific one, and science has been known to change, it is a sublime conceit to assume that, should our conception of, "the Universe," grow exponentially, to include distinctly separate, universal entities, the word that would necessarily be used to apply to their totality, would be the same, "universe." If that were to be the case, what word would differentiate just our own, particular, so-called, universe?

(It should, further, be noted that the term multiverse has already been suggested, should this concept pan-out, so to speak, and it seems to've been adopted by theoreticians in this sphere of discussion, as the standard way of referring to this state of affairs.)

Since it seemed quite clear, to me, that, by the word universe, the author of the OP was implying the additional words, "as we currently think of it," or something of similar meaning, it was disappointing that
drluggit did not bother to at least offer a guess as to whether or not the stuff of these, "thought experiments," as he refers to them, does actually EXIST--the main question, & challenge, of the OP.

For myself, I still can clearly recall an afternoon I spent at a park in Oahu, Hawaii, more than 20 years ago. My attention was held fast by the branches of one particularly lovely, and expansive, ornamental tree, every one of its fingers pressing upon a new frontier for the tree's exploration, poking its way, ever further from its trunk, advancing its being to previously unattained extremities, almost as though it were willing itself on a search for something. Lining both sides of the walkway, on my way out of the park, I noticed, were younger & smaller trees of this same variety, each also seeming to almost strain in stretching themselves outward, like our ever-expanding universe. Understanding the groundskeeper's intention, that the branches of the trees on either side would, eventually draw together to fully shade the path, I drew another image, from one of these tree's appearance of incessant, almost desperate striving: reaching out, as a God, I thought, wanting to touch another God.

 

To be a young Earth/universe supporter, one has to discard astronomy - ALL astronomy.

The electromagnetic spectrum we receive from the universe, from the lowest frequency radio waves to the highest frequency light, attests to the age of the universe being old.

Such a supporter would have to believe that God was creating photons and other radiation MID FLIGHT in such a way that it TOTALLY fools astronomers (and all related physics) on where the galaxies and stars are - or even whether ther ARE stars.

For example, the constellation Andromeda (a very close galaxy) is 2.5 million light years away. It took light from that galaxy 2.5 million years to get here.

Astronomers have detected a galaxy that is 13 billion light years distant - meaning that the universe has to be older than 13 billion years.

As for Earthly dating, young Earth supporters routinely discard essentially all modern dating technology.

 

So you agree then. A single universe is all inclusive. By definition, more than one universe is logically impossible. Either universe is all inclusive, or it isn't. The construct of multiple universes assumes a universe couldn't be all encompassing.

 

"Can things exist outside of the universe?"
This would mean we are not in 'the universe', merely in a universe.

 

Yes, it is impossible, by definition, as the universe is everything both seen and unseen. There is no getting outside of that.

 

But, is there?

Once we finally leave 'all of that'.

Are there OTHER things happening outside of our universe?
It's just not in our universe, so it's not happening to us, does that mean it's not happening at all?
Or is it happening/has it happened/can it happen, outside of our universe?
Is that impossible?

To exist outside of our universe?

 

Yup, and those multiple separate universes are still within "the universe".

It would be akin to a networking system. Sure, there could be many separate networks (universes) within a system, but they're still all within an overarching system ("the universe").

 

Can things exist outside of our own space time and multiverse?

Or is that impossible?

Why can't we have a multiverse of space time AND, something else, outside of it?
Probably with the power to observe it from the outside, or would we be as invisible to it as it is to us in our own universe/multiverse situation?

But even if we cannot see it, can it still be there? Is it impossible for such a thing to even exist?
A location/event outside of everything.

 

Is there 'time' for things other than those in our universe?