Impedance mismatch at the universes edge

  • Thread starter Thread starter curiouschris
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Edge Impedance
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the hypothetical implications of light encountering the edge of the universe, assuming such an edge exists. Two main scenarios are proposed: one where the universe expands at light speed, preventing anything from reaching the edge, and another where light reflects back due to an impedance mismatch, suggesting the edge could act like a mirror. Participants debate the validity of assuming an edge exists, with some asserting that current cosmological theories state the universe has no center or edge. The conversation highlights tensions between established scientific theories and personal beliefs, leading to a call for critical thinking and open discussion. Ultimately, the thread is locked due to speculation on unverified personal theories.
curiouschris
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Hey all

As is my way I pondered what would happen to light (and other emr) when it reaches the edge of the universe.

First one must assume the universe has an edge.

Anyways I figured there is possibly two cases
1./ The universe is expanding at the speed of light so nothing ever reaches the edge
2./ As light reaches the border between the known and the unknown it must encounter an impedance mismatch.

Working on 2, I would assume the edge of the universe would be a perfect mismatch, in that everything that reaches it reflects back. Would that make it a perfect mirror?

Given that one must think then that perhaps some of the cosmological features we see in the universe are in fact reflections.

If the reflection is not perfect but in fact diffused, then perhaps that would fill the universe with a even glow of electromagnetic radiation in much the same way as white walls help fill a room with light, even the dark corners where the bulb is eclipsed by a chair.

Hmm CMB?

CC
 
Space news on Phys.org
The universe has no edge. Please read the sticky'd thread at the top of this forum to learn about how the universe can be finite, yet not have an edge.
 
russ_watters said:
The universe has no edge. Please read the sticky'd thread at the top of this forum to learn about how the universe can be finite, yet not have an edge.

I read the sticky.

And I said one must assume the universe has an edge. it is a prerequisite for my mind experiment.

No one here can make such a bold statement as the Universe has no edge or no center.

Quote "the Universe in fact contains neither a centre or an edge"

I find it incredulous that thinking people can use the word FACT to replace the word THEORY. Until its proven beyond a shadow of a doubt its theory nothing more.

I am religious therefore its a FACT god exists
I am atheist therefore its a FACT god doesn't exist
I am a child therefore its a FACT Santa exists
I am a student therefore its a FACT anything my teacher says is true.
I am a teacher therefore it is a FACT anything I say is true, and DON'T EVER QUESTION ME

Isn't anyone here taught to think for themselves?

One thread on the subject...

WALLACE "On to the question, the Universe, at least according to current theory, has no centre." (or edge )

Notice the little bit about "current theory" which means IS NOT A FACT!

Given that theories are derived from ideas that fit the current known state of things at least until something better comes along. someone who calls himself a PF MENTOR should perhaps be a little less closeted in his idea's

Why do people insist on repeating the errors of history.

One last thing...
While I respect the "everyone on the same page" idea (to keep the loons out, er me I suppose), Isn't that a fool hardy approach to a discussion. It is saying let's set the facts before we discuss anything. But if you set the FACTS to the wrong set of theories then all discussion on the subject is wrong! starting from an invalid point makes everything derived from it invalid.
Though of course it does give people a nice cosy feeling of safety inside their belief system

CC
 
Last edited:
curiouschris said:
And I said one must assume the universe has an edge. it is a prerequisite for my mind experiment.
Starting with that assumption instantly leads to predicted observations about the universe that contradict what is actually seen. You'll find ample discussion of that in that thread and others (and, it would appear you already have, yet you have chosen to completely ignore what you've read). There is no point to rehashing the same discussion again here.
Though of course it does give people a nice cosy feeling of safety inside their belief system.
Unwillingness to accept that people have already throught through the concept you are discussing meeans the one operating on "belief" here is you.

Either way, there is no purpose for this thread. If the thread I referenced isn't enough, you can search the forums for the dozens of similar threads where the idea is discussed and read them as well.

[edit] Please note also that we have a rule against unverified personal theories. The type of speculation you are doing is not acceptable discussion here.

Thread locked.
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top