Is it possible for the universe to be gravity, energy, and/or a force? Explain?
123334
from what i remember 4d is when you can see behind a person as your seeing their front (back and front of their head) and 5d is someway similair to 4d but in water...i think its related to water...
146867
The physics behind the beginning of the universe  was probably different than it is today.  For instance the period of inflation was not something that is happening now  Unless the current expansion of the universe is the same thing just slowed down.  But I would say the chances are that even a TOE won't help us understand where the universe came from.
330284
Wow, Your question is so simple, but it's answer is researched for many decades now. \n\nAnyway, Any kind of energy (and the force is the mean in which the energy can be detected) requires the carrier, which is, well, material. Material carrier contains some kind of energy, in a certain amount. When the carrier collides with a body, it gives it's energy away to the body. In case of two carriers collision, a certain reaction occurs, and as the result, there is anoter type of energy or the carriers get destroyed, and their energy goes into heat or light. \n\nThe way of calculating an amount of energy that certain carrier contains, is the aplication of Einstein's formula of equality of the mass and the energy. If You are aware of the energy inside some particle, You can foresee it's influence to another particle.\n\nThe only force that is not connected to the appropriate particle is gravity (although there are some speculations about existence of so called "gravitones", as carriers of gravital energy and representers of the gravity force itself). \n\nThat unique force, which is not understood yet, makes Your question very heavy. Scientists from all over the world have been trying for more then 70 years to make the unified force theory, which could be used for calculations of any kind of force, with equaly accurate result. This would be named "The great unified theory of forces". So, let'hope that this theory will be defined soon, and that You will understand the duality force-matter better, by using it.
599198
If the universe is everything, then what is it expanding into?\n\nBefore we can address that question, we must first define universe.  \n\nThe word universe denotes all space and everything (matter, energy) contained within it.  The prefix uni means one.  The root verse means word, carnate message, meaningful substance, matter.  Questions regarding our universe persist today.  Does it have a beginning and end, or does it go on forever and ever?  Is it linear or curved?  If it has limits of length or curvature, then what lies beyond the Universe?  If something lies beyond the Universe, then can’t we accurately call that the Universe?\n\nSome lay people and some scientists conceive of the universe as infinite space.  Others define the universe as finite, or limited (perhaps curved), space.  Still others incorporate the elements of matter and/or energy into their definition of the universe, as opposed to the space beyond matter and energy.\n\nGiven these concepts of our universe, some scientists conclude that the “totality of space could be infinite. Shrink an infinite space by an arbitrary amount, and it is still infinite. (Scientific American March 2005).”  \n\nAs to the notion that we live in an ever expanding universe, moving away from every other universe on the fabric of space-time, some scientists are careful to point out that “\n\nAndromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble's law describes only the average behavior of galaxies (Scientific American March 2005).”\n\nIn accordance with your supposition that our universe is in another universe, “it has been hypothesized by some scientists that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe).” Modern astrophysicists talk about multiple "pocket" universes that branch off from one another.  Stephen Hawking points out that parallel pocket universes can have no effect on a real observer inside a single pocket, so, according to Hawking, they are theoretical baggage that should be eliminated from cosmology, the study of the origins of the universe.\n\nSome string theories define the universe as a three-dimensional space in an invisible space having more dimensions. This is, in essence, a universe within a universe.  Our zone, a “braneworld” could periodically bounce into another parallel braneworld.  This may create what would appear as a Big Bang from one perspective or a Big Bounce of alternating expanding and contracting universe from another perspective.  Such a cataclysmic event is thought to occur 300 billion years from now, resulting in the rearranging and creation of a new universe.\n\nIf the universe is everything, then what is it expanding into?  It seems that our universe is all matter, space, and energy that we can perceive in this closed system.  However, that does not mean that there is not additional matter, space, and energy outside our universe.  In other words, there are probably other universes.  Therefore, the zone that we call our universe (or braneworld) may be moving through or expanding into other universes (or braneworlds).  In sum, all universes may be moving through a multiverse.\n \nSteve\n:-D
600042
No.\n\nOnly gravity can be interpreted as a curvature in space-time. This is because only gravity acts on all particles - with or without rest mass. All other forces act specifically between particular types of particles.\n\nYes, space-time ripples. General relativity's equations have wave like solutions that predict that changes in the mass/stress producing a gravitational field will propogate in a wave like manner.
153236
universe = infinite ... and if not infinite it's still pretty freakin big... how can we be so sure that somewhere out there there isn't a solar system similar to ours and a planet similar to ours?  A planet with gravity, oxygen and water just like ours?  A planet with life just like ours? …. Uh… oh… A planet with life more advanced than ours?  Or even less advanced than ours?  Was I supposed to give an answer?  Oops!
599342
Love is the greatest force in the whole universe.It's the force that keeps everything moving and everything in perfect ballance. It's the source from which we all derive our energy.It's the energy that keeeps us going each and every day.It's the reason we breathe.It's what we're all made of.It's the reason to live: to love and to be loved.
237315
LOL I like Mainworry's answer...not!\nCreate anything living without using matter that already exists.\nHe's right, I can't we all can't.... yet!\nBut maybe we will Create matter, out of energy one day.\nThen what will he say.\nBut I know something I can create right now...GOD.\nYes I can create GOD In my own image.
659685
This "nothing" is what we perceive without the laws of physics. Our universe is limited by the knowledge we have about it. Recent theories (the "M" theory) suggest that endless universes exist, and sometimes they even collide one into other. Probably, out there, beyond the boundaries of 12 billions light years, others dimensions, other plan of existence exist.
475187
According to Newtonian gravity, gravitational force is -GMm/r^2.  Any mass experiences a gravitational force toward every other mass in the universe, proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of their distance.  This means my body experiences a certain gravitational force from the sun, no matter what else is happening in the universe.  That says it would be impossible to shield me from the sun's gravity.\n\nTo find the net gravitational force on me, simply do a vector sum of all the gravitational forces on me from all other masses in the universe.  Simple to say, not so simple to do.\n\nThat sum is zero at the center of mass of the universe, wherever that is.  Unless the expansion of the universe is perfectly uniform, that point will shift with time.  I could find other points where the sum is zero.  I move away from that center of mass but toward a large nearby mass, just close enough that the pull of that nearby mass exactly balances the pull of the rest of the universe.  These will be single points, not regions.  At these points, I still can't say there's no gravitational force acting on me.  But I can say there are countless gravitational forces acting on me, but their sum is zero.\n\nLet's say I tell you I found such a zero-sum spot, about 1/3 of the way between our sun and Alpha Centauri, and I take you there.  How will you know I am telling you the truth?  The principle of equivalence says that there's no test you could make to tell whether the net gravitational force there is zero, or whether you are just accelerating according to the effect of the nonzero net force on your mass.\n\nThe relativistic warping of spacetime in the presence of gravitational mass is more a way of representing or measuring that force, rather than explaining it.  Neither Newton nor Einstein could tell us why gravity exists or how it works.  If spacetime is not warped in your region, it doesn't mean the gravitational field is zero, it means it is uniform.  And again, how would you tell whether spacetime is warped in your region?\n\nI've tried for decades to think of a gravity shield or a gravity insulator.  If I do find one, watch for my Nobel Prize in physics, and for me to quickly surpass Bill Gates on the wealth scale.
417643
No, physicists have always known that gravity is the one "force" that we really still don't understand. Now it is true that at macroscopic or large distance scales, we understand gravity very well through Einstein's General Relativity Theory. But at the quantum level, the scale of sub-atomic particles, we have no idea how gravity works there. And the most interesting thing is that when we try to probe and understand gravity at the quantum level, we find that we have to abandon all our currently understanding of space and time, as well as the notion of 3-dimensional space.
569028
We cannot yet predict the details of the universe in its most compact state.  Quantum mechanics has yet to produce a theory predicting gravitation as we observe it.  General relativity as it stands cannot predict the probablistic nature of microscale phenomena.\n\nScientists have offered up other models, again none of these describes things perfectly at all scales.  You might do a google search for M-Theory - which attempts to connect various complementary models.\n\nIn all seriousness and with no sarcasm intended, "What started the big bang?" may be a leading question in a sense...a little like asking "Why does the sun rise in the west?"  It doesn't of course.\n\nWe observe our environment in countless states.  The correlation - the progression - of these states, we call 'time'.  We perceive time as a dimension inseparable from space.  Cause implies 'time' as described here...something that is really has no meaning apart from space, energy, etc., the boundary of which we call the big bang.\n\nThat's not an attempt to dodge the question. From our everyday experiences we come to expect causation.  What we observe at very small scales requires no such mechanism, however.\n\nI'd recommend getting Hawking's book The Universe in a Nutshell.\n\nHope this helps.
131776
It could be possible but there is something called the cosmological principle that are a set of assumptions about the universe that prevents us from determining that.  Basically we need to assume, among other things, that the laws of physics, as they apply here, work the same in other parts of the universe.  Without this assumption we couldn't make any statements about the universe since it would be pure speculation.
643592
gravity is the curvature of space-time.  The more mass an object has, the more gravity it has, the bigger the curvature.  Imagine a rubber sheet with a bowling ball on it.  The sheet is space-time and curves around the ball.  No energy necessary.
673962
I don't really believe in this God-particle everybody is talking about here....\n\nThe scientific theory is that the Universe started as a fluctuation of the vacuum. Such vacuum fluctuations make appear a small amount of energy, for a small time. This phenomenon is responsible for the existence of forces, that hold the Universe and matter together.\n\nNormally the bigger the energy fluctuation, the smaller the time it is in existence.\n\nNot so the Big Bang. That was a HUGE fluctuation. So big that a lot of energy came to appearance in the form of mass, elementary particles. These particles started expanding, before the vacuum could reclaim the energy.\n\nAnd it is still expanding today. 14 billion years later.
113132
No one knows exactly.  It's interchangeable with matter, but no one knows exactly what matter is either.  We can describe properties of matter and energy with reference to each other, but we can't really objectively understand what they are.
193118
It is completely unknown, since we cannot measure it and have no examples-we dont even have any proper theories, since there is also dark energy, and we dont know which of the effects we observe are due to dark matter and which due to dark matter.  We do suspect that dark matter generates gravity, and perhaps generates and anti-gravitational force (though normal mass may also do this at large enough distance)  We also know that it does not seem to block any kind of electromagnetic wave, nor does it generate any that can be detected, so it isnt just something like dust clouds or large planets without stars.