I repeat: We have insufficient information for a meaningful answer. I have seen cosmological models showing that our universe is a sphere – or, rather, a “hypersphere,” curved in some fourth dimension (not time, but a fourth spatial dimension – if you don’t understand the concept, read Edwin Abbot’s Flatland (1884), Dionys Burger’s Sphereland (1965), and Rudy Rucker’s The Fourth Dimension (1985)). But that’s just a model, and I don’t know whether it’s still accepted as accurate (I’ve also seen parabolic and hyperbolic models). If our universe were a “hypershere” it could be floating in some metaspace together with a lot of other hyperspherical “bubble universes.” But that’s all speculation at this point; we have no data to support or discredit the model. See also the Wikipedia pages on cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) and parallel universes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe); they contain little info but they have external links to sites that treat the subjects in greater depth. (Message-button I once saw at an SF convention: “There are no answers, only cross-references.”)
Cool idea. You could make a movie about that. Maybe Keaneau Reeves… Maybe call it The Matrix… Maybe put a hot chick in it called Trinity…
Take the set problem posed by toadspittle. Don’t add 6, 7, and 8, simply increase the distance between 1,2,3,4, and 5. An expanding set does not have to expand into anything. In other words, you still have only 5 integers in the set. But the distance between them (as compared to the distance between them a few minutes ago) is larger. No new space is occupied. No new things are added. The set is simply larger.
Ah yes. One of the great stoner navel-gazing questions. 
The problem most people have, I think, is a limited idea of the Big Bang. Most people think of the BB as a singularity rapidly expanding into, well, something. Nothingness, maybe. Space, maybe. How could it expand into something that didn’t exist?
But before the universe existed, the concept of “where” had no meaning. It may not have any meaning “outside” our universe now. The concept of “where” is a product of physics as we know it. The interactions of the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, and electromagnetism. The three spatial dimensions as we know them, plus time. The rapid expansion of the universe defined and created these things, and the fundamental forces were all unified into a single - um, something - before a certain point in the universe’s expansion called Planck Time.
We don’t have the equipment to understand what the “singularity” was like, because before a certain point, physics literally did not exist as we know it.
No joke, but when the Matrix came out, a friend asked me if I wrote it, since I was bugging him with all these questions for a long time. Of course, I wasn’t the only one with such questions. They go back as far as Plato’s Cave (if not even further), which I guess was the ancient equivalent of the Matrix.
There is no navel.
How can you increase the distance between the 4 and the 5 if there is no space for them to expand into?
What does “distance” mean, if not some measure of the space between them?
As someone who was watching that same program last night (my four-year-old was threatening to throw a fit if I changed the channel), I can say that yes, I know what you meant.
On the other hand, I must also remind you that the whole Bush/Kerry debate is largely about which guy is going to be in charge of that miniscule corner of the cosmos that we happen to be on. Since I don’t currently have an option to migrate off the planet, the relatively miniscule nature of the debate suddenly gains a whole lot more weight, if you know what I mean.
Can you or anyone actually grasp the concepts “before the universe existed”, “outside our universe”, etc?
It’s something we can all learn to repeat, and maybe have some sort of understanding based on equations that describe it, but is anyone able to grasp/digest these concepts?
For example, I think that some models of the universe predict that if the universe starts collapsing, time will start going backwards. While I can see that someone might derive equations that predict time going backwards, I just can’t see how anyone can grasp it at an intuitive level.
Can you please define “expansion of the universe”? What exactly is expanding, and what does expanding result in?
I would describe physics as the study of the laws of nature, so, even if the laws of nature were different at some point in spacetime, I wouldn’t say that physics did not exist.
Polerius What’s wrong buddy…it’ not that hard to grasp. We are existing on a planet revolving around a sun (one of billions of others) in a barred arm spiral galaxy in in an expanding universe that is several billion years old. It is consuming the vacuum left from the collapse of the previous “universe”. When the energy of this universe is burnt out and starts to collapse, it will be replaced by yet a different universe. They exist simultaneously and adjacent to one another and expand into the “space” previously occupied by its neighbor.
Nothing to it. 
The universe never actually ceases to exist in the sense that all matter dissappeared. The size of the universe is what changes. It goes from a singular point to a size which we would describe as near infinite.
Time only goes forward. It’s kinda like tryiing to “unburn” a cup of gasoline. There is no automatic rewind on life. I wish I could sometimes but it ain’t happening. At least not physically.
Where does this all take place?
Size is a measure of how much space something occupies. So, if the size of an object increases, it occupies more space.
So, if the size of spacetime increases, it occupies more space. But all of “space” is already within the thing we call spacetime, so how can spacetime find more space to occupy?
Not according to the Big Crunch theory
But as the adjacent universe begin to collapse it provides space for the newly expanding one.
The energy which caused the expansion is depleted and as a result the universe starts to collapse. Matter is forced back to a singular point. One might say that time is reversed…but the universe doesn’t go into rewind. It is crushed not “uncreated” in the sense that rain drops fall up into the clouds and were are sucked back into the womb.etc…time in this existence no longer has meaning because we are no longer moving forward. The “void” has caught up with us. All surrounding universe are forcing our own demise pushing us back to where we started. When an equilibrium is found…the expansion of our neighboring universe will cease and we will “bang” again.
In a limited sense, yes. We can understand with a fair amount of precision what it was like as far back as 10[sup]-43[/sup] seconds after whatever it was began “expanding.” Before that, conditions are utterly alien to intuitive perception, and have thus far utterly eluded even very advanced mathematics. Superstring theory (and supergravity) seeks to describe what it was like in quantum terms, but I’m afraid a human intuitive grasp of the conditions will probably be impossible forever.
Sure. The concepts might very well be completely “graspable,” but not on anything like a “gut” level. You’re just going to have to trust to mathematics. Maybe.
As far as I know, this model has been dealt serious damage recently. Essentially, continuous monitoring of universal background radiation and distant supernovae since the lat '90’s has pointed to the conclusion that the Einsteinian Cosmological Constant (a thread in itself) is not zero, as Einstein first thought. This means, obviously, that the universe is not static. Big surprise. We kinda already knew that. But what is surprising is that the value of the constant points to the conclusion that the universe is not slowing down its expansion, nor is it expanding at a constant rate.
It is accelerating.
This has given us the idea of Dark Energy, that something out there that is exerting a force on every particle in the universe, which will apparently eventually end with the universe being an exceptionally thin soup of quanta in a space many millions of times more voluminous as that occupied by the present universe. At the uttermost end, one quanta coming within millions of light years of another will be a staggering, cosmic coincidence.
Right now, with the exception of a few scientists championing the Big Crunch, that hypothesis seems to be dead.
Of course, it’s been a year or two since I’ve had the opportunity to closely follow cosmology, so if there are any recent developments or corrections, please feel free.
Well, the average space in three dimensions between quanta of energy and particles of matter that make up the total of what we know as the “universe” is increasing overall. The expansion results in a bigger universe, in terms of three dimensions.
If you are asking about more exotic, theoretical dimensions, sorry but I can’t help you.
Please note that I never said physics did not exist. I said physics did not exist as we know it. Big difference. There is hope that someday, whatever those physical laws were may be illuminated via mathematics - but I wouldn’t hold my breath that they’ll be intuitively understandable.
But the above could just mean that space stays the same but the quanta of energy and particles of matter are just moving away from each other in space.
How do you (measurably) differentiate between this and the case where the fabric of space itself is expanding?
And again, if the fabric of space is expanding (which is what the modern Big Bang theory claims), what does that mean?
If we think of space as some grid, is there more “space” between the nodes on the grid? But where does this more space come from, since spacetime already includes all of space.
This reminds me of an anecdote that goes something like this:
A physics professor was teaching Relativity or Quantum theory and he derived a result on the board that was a bit difficult for the students.
One of his students asked: “Is that result intuitive?”
The professor said: “let me think about it”
He came back the next day, after spending several hours on the problem, and told the students: “yes, it’s intuitive”
Polerius
What do you mean by “Where”, by “are” and by "we’, as in “Where are we?”
By “we”, do you mean earthly humans and their perceptions, or do you mean all matter-space-and-time, including a subatomic particle in a new galaxy currently being formed, trillions of light years away from planet earth?
By “where”, do you mean “What Place” or “What Location”? If so, you need to have a grand map in your hand so that I can pinpoint exactly at what place or location on that map you are. Do you have such a grand map handy?
If yes, show it to me and I’ll answer exactly where “we” are, depending on your definition of “we”.
If no, then please go back to square one and define what you mean by “Where”, “we” and “are”. By “are” do you mean the current time and space, or relative time and space?
In his/her post above, Ogre pointed to the meaning of the concept of “where”, but you seem to have ignored that, and instead, concentrated on the meaning of “before the universe existed”.
Within the context of Bush/Kerry debates, and as Bill Clinton said, it all depends what the meaning of “is” is.
So, Plerius, please define the meaning or your concept of “where”, “are” and “we”, before you ask “Where are we”.
I mean everything: matter-space-and-time. All of our universe.
I don’t mean “What Location”. I’m not interested in my Cartesian coordinates within our universe.
I want to know where the entire universe exists.
Are you referring to this quote by Ogre?
If you are, I did not address this because I am not interested in the “where” within out universe, which may or may not be well defined for all time.
I want to know where does our universe exist.
If you think of the Christian analogy for a second (not necessary for this discussion, but may help explain my question), God created all of “Creation”: where is this Creation located?
Or, if you think of the Big Bang, and you think of the moment just before the Big Bang, when all our universe was a point: where was this point located?
If “where” is a loaded word because it is related to location within our universe, maybe other terms might be:
- “in what context does our universe exist?”
- “in what environment does our universe exist?”
In plain language: “where the hell *is * all this?”
We’re here, of course. Where are you? Not there, I hope. Don’t go there.
Distance means exactly that. but just because there is more space between 4 and 5 does not mean that the space came from somewhere else.
Consider that we measure distance as a function of the speed of light. The time it takes light to travel from 4 to 5 gives us the distance. We measure it one day and then again the next. If the time has increased, we say that the distance has increased. There is no necessity to demonstrate that the extra distance came from anywhere else.
BTW, Polerius, I think most cosmologists would agree that the most important unanswered basic question of cosmology is not "Where is the universe?" with reference to some larger scheme of things (a question which might or might not have any meaningful answer), but "Why is the universe?" That is, why is there something rather than nothing?