Cosmology-I am very confused-who can answer this question?
823702
I think John put it pretty clear; but I would like to say that some of these programs leave me pretty dam scared.  I also find it hard to buy into some of the ideas.  But that is just me.
800785
Ah yes, people like to give mumbo jumbo bullshiet answers to this question to confuse you further.\n\nThe thing is, we really have no idea. This is half the reason the answer is so confusing.\n\nScientists, like myself, have defined the universe as everything and like to say it isn't expanding into anything because, quite frankly, they don't know what's going on and it's easier to just define the universe as that for the time being. I don't know, neither does anyone else.\n\nFrom recent science, we know that the universe is absolutely finite, therefore it's size is increasing; it is getting larger. This can also be seen by looking at microwave radiation maps of the universe.\n\nSo then, what is it expanding into? Well, if ANYONE could answer this question, they would probably go down in history as greater than even people like Einstein, Newton, Galileo...but the reality is, we don't know. All answers to this question are purely spectical and usually formed to fit a belief system that has been adapted from that person.\n\n\nPersonally, it's probably expanding into more space, which probably contains an indefinite number of universes and extends infinitely.\n\nBut that is only my personal view. Just like all other views.
1119481
Wow! You do not ask for much do you...This is a very complicated question to answer...and frankly NO ONEyet fully understands how to answer it. \n\nAccording to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which is our premier way of explaining how gravity works, there is no formal distinction between the description of what a gravitational field is, and what space-time is.\n\nEssentially, space is what we refer to as 3 of the 4 dimensions to a more comprehensive entity called the space-time continuum, and this continuum is itself just another name for the gravitational field of the universe. If you take away this gravitational field...space-time itself vanishes! \n\nTo ask where space comes from is the same as asking, according to general relativity, where this gravitational field came from originally, and that gets us to asking what were the circumstances that caused the Big Bang itself. We don't really know.
1090798
Actually astronomers and physicists are really quite puzzled by the whole universe.  They have absolutely no idea what the dark matter is.  Some postulate that it is neutrinos, even though they have not be able to show that neutrinos have mass. And they do not know if the expansion will stop or not.  At the moment it appears that it will not but they are not certain. They do not know even why the matter of the universe has congealed into galaxies instead of a uniform soup. They have concocted elaborate hypotheses as to why, but they are still puzzled.\n\nAnd best of all is why is there no anti-matter except in labratories?\nWhy did it not cancel out all the matter to begin with?
857388
I think it is some calculation based on the most distant objects we can see (with radio telescopes etc.) and interpretation of 'background' radio echos attributed to the big bang. One figure gave the universe a diameter of 26 billion light years.\nI have heard about the big bang theory and people say they have evidence and the scientist are not really disputing it. As a lay reader this will do it for me.\nBut other possibilities do exist that remain consistent with what we have found out about our universe.\nIs this the first big bang in this universe, could we be expanding in the wake of the last such explosion that occurred in this part of a larger universe?.\nHow many universes are there?\nFrom a mental point of view I find it hard to assign a boundary to the universe and just accept there is nothing beyond it.
233899
Laney, first of all allow me to say that I'm incredibly glad and pleasantly surprised to hear of your genuine interest in this field.   You are to be truly commended for your intellectual courage and abilities.  ...But to address your question, there are in fact thousands of great explanatory/layman-type books out there on Quantum Mechanics, Field Theory, Gravity, Philosophy, Reality, and associated topics like cosmology, etc.  Some of them even dating back to the mid 70's, that nonetheless are still wonderful reads.  ...Theoretical physics at the level that we are talking about here, though, is unfortunately a seven-headed exotic mathematical monster that is not even accessible to most physicists, much less the lay person.   Having said that, and as you know, there have been courageous attempts by talented physicist like Brain Greene (and many others before and after him) to make our latest theoretical/scientific visions of the physical world/universe available to the general public.   ...Since you mentioned that you are NOT mathematically inclined, but did enjoy Greene's The Elegant Universe, the first thing that came to my mind (and the book that I would recommend most) was in fact Greene's newer work called "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" - in case you haven't read it yet.    \n\nAmong some of the other more recent titles worth mentioning also are:\n\nThe Great Beyond - by: Paul Halpener (A very nice book)\n\nThe Cosmic Landscape - by: Leonard Susskind\n\nHiding in the Mirror - by: Lawrence M. Krauss\n\nThe Road to Reality - by: Rofer Penrose\n\nA First Course in String Theory - by: Barton Zwiebach (This is a very nice book but a lil' more mathematically oriented than you might enjoy - let's say undergraduate physics level) \n\nI also highly recommend:  The Five Ages of the Universe - by: Fred Adams\n\nThat should keep you busy for a while - Good Reading!  ;-)
986664
Well, its been theorised that what is beyond the universe is a fourth dimensional bowl. Basically our universe is a 3d soup encased in a four dimensional bowl. How was that made? I would think the same way that our universe was created. I mean, we have only just begun to comprehend the world around us, many of the theories that are coming out are exactly that theories because we really dont know. Untill we can explore more of our universe, we arent really going to know, and if its in a 4th dimension, we really wont know. But, what you could do, is look at some of the sources, and hopefully those will help.
468084
Greetings,\n\nKinda outta my league, but perhaps the link I posted can be of some use to you.\n\nDiscover had an article last year about a couple of inflation cosmology theorists who believed the speed of light, while constant now, was not constant in the very early universe, it was in fact slower.  Not sure about all that, but thought you might want to go digging for the article.\n\n-matt
5808
Nobody really knows for sure.\n\nThere's a theory that the universe is expanding in a spherical shape and will continue to expand until it reaches maximum entropy. At that point all of the energy and matter in the universe will be equally distributed and the universe will no longer be able to support life.\n\nThere's another theory that the universe will expand (again, roughly in the shape of a sphere) until all of the galaxies exhaust their kinetic energy. At that point the universe will begin contracting. When the contracting is complete a singularity containing all of the mass in the universe will form and explode in a big bang.\n\nIf you think about it, if the latter theory is true then it's possible that the universe has expanded and collapsed an infinite number of times in the past!
1008044
Hi NY NY 2\n\nQuite a hodge podge of answers above.  let me see if I can clear some misconceptions up for you:\n\nFirst, the evidence. About 8 years ago two separate independent groups announced measurements of the brightness of supernova at a redshift z=1.  (Cosmologists use redshift factor "z" to show how far away something is in space-time by designating how far light from the object is redshifted by the time it arrives at earth.  The redshift is due to the expansion of the intervening space.  Redshift z=1 corresponds to a distance where the wavelength of light has been redshifted to double its original wavelength.).  These results indicated that the universal expansion was accelerating.  Since that time the results have been confirmed, and supporting evidence was found in the detailed mapping of the microwave background.\n\nSurprisingly (you might think) it is very easy to modify the equations which describe the universe's evolution to make the expansion accelerate.  The reason for this is that Einstein originally included such a factor in his early equations.\n\nBriefly, the equations for the universe at large scale talk about gravity and pressures.  Gravity tries to collapse the universe together and pressures push it apart (roughly).  When Einstein came up with his model (1915), everyone thought the universe was static (so called "steady state"), ie it didn't change over time.  So he included a cosmological constant to counteract the collapsing action of gravity and keep the universe steady.  This cosmological constant "pushes outwards" to counter gravities inward push.  By 1928 Hubble's catalogue had convinced people the universe was expanding (not steady) and physicists realised the cosmological constant wasn't required.  Einstein called its original inclusion "his biggest blunder".  It seems that call was wrong.  :o)\n\nNow the cosmological constant is coming back.  To describe an expanding universe you stick it back in and change the values for the density of normal mass-energy and the cosmological constant, and voila - an expanding universe.  The question then becomes: what does this constant physically represent?\n\nAt present cosmologists use the term "dark energy" to refer to a number of possible culprits.  From the equations we know the properties of this dark energy very well.  Some physicists link it to action of the quantum vacuum, some label it "quintessence" (the "fifth force").  \n\nIt is *not* (as suggested above) dark matter or antimatter.  Dark matter is invoked to explain galactic dynamics: galaxies tend to rotate in a fashion which suggests they have more mass than we can actually see.  This missing mass is presumed to be dark (which is why we can't see it).  Dark matter would act like ordinary matter in Einstein's equaitons, and so can't produce an accelerated expansion.  Antimatter also behaves gravitationally like ordinary matter and so it can't be responsible for accelerated expansion either.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
893198
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147\nhttp://universeadventure.org/\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology\nhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html\n\nthis is actually a common misconception about the big bang. the universe is not expanding into anything. the universe is four-dimensional, but a two-dimensional version may be something like the surface of a sphere, and it is this surface that is expanding. the universe seems to be finite in size, yet it has no center and no edge. nothing, not even space-time, seems to exist "outside" the universe. the big bang was the entire universe, and everywhere in the universe was once the big bang.\n\nthe earliest, and oldest, radiation we can observe is the cosmic microwave background, and we see it in every direction we look, but the universe was much smaller at that time. the universe had expanded and cooled enuf for electrons and atomic nuclei, about 74 percent hydrogen and 26 percent helium, to combine and form neutral atoms. before this time the universe was much like a heavy fog, but when atoms formed, there were no free electrons to scatter light, and the universe became transparent. today, we see this light stretched to microwave wavelengths by the expansion of space-time.\n\nanything with a cosmological redshift of 1.7 is receding at light-speed, c.  anything with a greater redshift is receding faster than c.  the redshift of the cmb is 1089.  the cmb seems to be at least 78 billion light-years away, but the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
844932
i don't think in terms of the universe being massive compared to the size of galaxies,but minuscule compared to that which is outside the universe, that way there is an endless supply of material on hand.here at the"center of the universe"it's all relative to our thinking everything is so large but since all we can do is theorize about whats out there,why cant we theorize outside the box,way outside the box. where did science get this idea ? i believe that a chaotic set of galaxies brings about an ordered universe that is a single organism of a larger set of chaotic universes,which in turn forms ordered groups of galactic multiverses which is a small component of a megaverse ,and so on
1067957
No matter how many 'experts' around here claim that there are alternate universes or other dimensions or a brick wall, nobody--repeat NOBODY--really knows. Tons of theories, but not one single shred of evidence to support any of them.\n\nScientific research has repeatedly indicated that our universe is infinite in scope, and that it will expand forever although its contents (mass and energy) will very, very gradually fade away to nothing.\n\nBefore our universe began, and right now, there's probably nothing else but an absolute and infinite void totally without energy, mass, spacetime, dimensions or anything else.
244822
The universe is considered to be open now with a slight negative curvature.  We used to consider it closed (you'd return to your starting point if went in 1 direction).  Since discovering that the universe is expanding faster than ever, they changed their minds.  At least that's the way I read it most recently.
1072523
read these:\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html\nhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
574337
There are various conflicting theories about this.Some say universe will keep on expanding.Some say it will be a see saw .Some say it will all end in a big contraction.It's still a open question.
253987
I can't say i'm a supporter of either UNS / BigB theories coz both isn't convincing enough to me. Your point here is exactly why i don't believe in UNS, as for BigB, yes your argument does suggest that everything starts from a singularity.. then what is that singularity? Can universe be considered started because of the big bang then? or was that singularity was actually been part of the universe all along? if you think from here further.. don't you think UNS sounds more logical?\n\nall and all.. they're all theories, and believes.. just like we can't prove the theories about Multiverse.