[Tormod]

Originally Posted by infamous

This space we call the universe can be understood in simple terms as, a bubble surrounded by nothingness.

This is a common view but hardly correct. In fact, the universe is more likely a flat surface in multiple dimensions - like the surface of balloon but with the addition of thickness. This interpretation also allows the universe to be spatially finite in reach yet have no finite boundary.

[paultrr]

Einstein original theory was based upon what could be termed an empty space-time which was static in that it never expanded or contracted. To get his static universe he utilized his cosmological constant. The problem with the constant he used was it was like a pencil ballanced on its point. Sooner or later it would go one way or another. So in later versions he droped that constant calling it his worst blunder. But, his original empty set gave us in later modifications the very foundation upon which almost all of modern theory is built. An interesting aspect out of math that is well known and yet, seldom actually paid attention to is the effect of a zero in equations. If a zero is used one way you simply get a pure empty result. But if a zero is used another way you get infinity as a result.

Despite the fact that I tend to stay out of all the religion motivated discussions that appear on science forums for the most part it is interesting that both creationism as commonly upheld by the christian religion and modern science both have the universe created out of nothing or an empty set. The power pregant within a simple zero is far under rated by many.

Our vacuum, as I have pointed out to a few before has never actually since the advent of modern quantum theory been a real empty set at all. There was an article that appeared in print a bit back that mentions that Einstein emptied the aether Newton had given us of everything and modern science filled that empty set back up. Nature tends to abhor a pure empty set and always seems to fill that set with something. In the case of the universe its filled with potential energy and realized energy in the form of different particles.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Tormod

This is a common view but hardly correct. In fact, the universe is more likely a flat surface in multiple dimensions - like the surface of balloon but with the addition of thickness. This interpretation also allows the universe to be spatially finite in reach yet have no finite boundary.

Agreed Tormod; But that is why I used the words "in simple terms" to discribe a very complex issue. Your definition is truly much more correct, it is however much more difficult for we laymen to fully comprehend. You do have a way with words.