What Is Beyond The Observable Universe?

[Silverbackman]

Is it just black space extending forever? Or perhaps black space for a finite distance until another universe?

I find it hard to believe our universe is just the only universe. I don't see how it wouldn't extend for eternity instead. What is so special about our universe and the space we are in?

What do you think?

 

[Chronos]

By logical necessity, there is literally 'nothing' beyond the observable universe. It is impossible to apply falsifiable predictions to something that is inherently unobservable.

 

[Silverbackman]

By logical necessity, there is literally 'nothing' beyond the observable universe. It is impossible to apply falsifiable predictions to something that is inherently unobservable.

In other words it is more in the realms of philosophy right now. But don't you think in the future we may be able to see beyond what is now considered the observable universe and find other universes? What do you think?

It just doesn't make any sense how this universe could be the only one. I always thought of the universe/multiverse/omniverse as infinite.

If there is 'nothing' outside the observable universe it would be just black space for eternity, right? Unless the universe is round (which all current evidence points to it being flat) then you can't arrive back in the universe in the other side. Plus most likelly space, like "time" is infinite.

 

[mathman]

According to the inflation model, the universe is much bigger than the observable universe. On the other hand, the total universe is is still finite, but there is no such thing as outside. The simplest analogy is what is outside the surface of a sphere (ingnoring the third dimension).

 

[Silverbackman]

But most evidence points to the universe being flat. In that case a what would happen if you reach the end of the universe? If it were a spherical universe then we would just reach the other side. But what would happen if you reach the end of the universe? Would their be like a giant hard barrier that you can hit but not explode? Sounds to mythical to me. The universe seems to complex for it to be just finite.

The universe isn't infinitely big and infinitely small?

 

[Chronos]

The 'edge' of our observable universe is receeding faster than the speed of light: which means you can't get there from here.

 

[Silverbackman]

The 'edge' of our observable universe is receeding faster than the speed of light: which means you can't get there from here.

Well yea of course we can't really see it. However is that proof there is nothing beyond there? What proof is there that 'nothing' exists at the edge of the observable universe? We just can't see it from our place in the cosmos. Perhaps if we were on another planet across the universe we may be able to observe more into what we cannot currently see, right?

 

[kant]

By logical necessity, there is literally 'nothing' beyond the observable universe. It is impossible to apply falsifiable predictions to something that is inherently unobservable.

What do you mean by "logical necessity"?

I think there is something that cannot be explain 'outside' space-time of own universe, but that is a different assertion of "nothing"?

 

[Chronos]

Let's focus on the definition of a 'universe'. It necessarily includes all things possible to observe. This allows the possibility we have not yet observed all things possible to observe. In that sense, anything that is truly external to our observable universe is literally 'nothing'. It is, and will forever be undefinable.

 

[Silverbackman]

Our guess the space and time in our universe is finite. However it is just hard to believe there was no time before the big bang and no content beyond our observable universe. It doesn't make sense how things can by finite. I mean what happened before the big bang and why are there boundaries at the ends of our universe?

By studying the universe and the physical world one can truly see things aren't orderly per se. They far beyond the realms of organized imagination and can only be understood with observation and empiricism. Limits on the universe would truly make things beyond confusing.

BTW, what do scientists think happened before the big bang. Since the universe is expanding according to most of the evidence today, the cyclical big crunch is unlikely. What do scientists think are the likely choices?

 

[kant]

Let's focus on the definition of a 'universe'. It necessarily includes all things possible to observe. This allows the possibility we have not yet observed all things possible to observe. In that sense, anything that is truly external to our observable universe is literally 'nothing'. It is, and will forever be undefinable.

You define 'everything' to be the observable universe( U ), and anything that is not U is nothing. Am i talking to a robot, or am i talking to a human being?

 

[Chronos]

Just dealing with the logical inconsistencies. 'U' includes the set of events possible to observe in this universe. 'Not U' includes the set of events impossible to observe. 'Not U', hence, is not causal in the chain of events that occur in this universe. 'Not U', therefore, is irrelevant [i.e., does not exist].

 

[kant]

Just dealing with the logical inconsistencies. 'U' includes the set of events possible to observe in this universe. 'Not U' includes the set of events impossible to observe. 'Not U' has no effect on the causal chain of events that occur in this universe. 'Not U' is therefore meaningless [i.e., does not exist].

So if an 'event' occur outside of our spacetime; its effect is incapabe of reaching us. In your opinion, it does not exist?

Why should existence need an observer?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So if an 'event' occur outside of our spacetime; its effect is incapabe of reaching us. In your opinion, it does not exist?

Why should existence need an observer?

Listen to yourself! Do events we can never know about exist or not? How the hell can you or I or anyone ever know? It's just a fantasy!

 

[kant]

Listen to yourself! Do events we can never know about exist or not? How the hell can you or I or anyone ever know? It's just a fantasy!

What is your point? Your last three sentence seems to be in agreement with me.

 

[SpaceTiger]

But most evidence points to the universe being flat. In that case a what would happen if you reach the end of the universe?

The generic flat universe (with a trivial topology) is actually infinite in extent. Other topologies allow for a finite universe, in which one could (in theory) loop around it, given enough time.

 

[SpaceTiger]

...why are there boundaries at the ends of our universe?

The only boundaries are those set by the finite age of the universe (also known as "horizons"). For example, the "particle horizon" is the distance of the largest object whose light could have reached us since the beginning of time.

what do scientists think happened before the big bang. Since the universe is expanding according to most of the evidence today, the cyclical big crunch is unlikely. What do scientists think are the likely choices?

In the standard cosmological model, there is no "before" the Big Bang. Realistically, though, we can't say much of anything about the universe pre-inflation, so the best answer is that we don't know.

 

[heliocentricprose]

I believe that more stars, black holes, and galaxies lie beyond the observable universe. These unseen do not effect us because of the cosmic expansion. However, (I think this has been said before) I like to think of the observable as a line of sight. You can't see it over the horizon, yet you know China exists. Outside that 'sphere' of the universe, I believe, out of pure guesswork and fantasy (of course), that the other dimensions of the universe, come into play... this is the point where I start confusing myself and start watching Spongebob Square Pants. :) Good day.

 

[hejs]

If we travel infinitely far into the microcosmos then we will meet the astronaut who travel infinitely far out to the macrocosmos. Sound good at least :)

 

[Tojen]

Isn't space created by matter? If that's the case, there should be nothing past the boundaries of the Universe, at least nothing we can perceive or relate to in any way.

 

[kmarinas86]

Isn't space created by matter? If that's the case, there should be nothing past the boundaries of the Universe, at least nothing we can perceive or relate to in any way.

No, the majority of physicists think it is created by "dark energy", but its not really the creation of space, it's the expansion of it.

 

[kant]

So, i guess the robot is giving me the silent treatment.

 

[Tojen]

No, the majority of physicists think it is created by "dark energy", but its not really the creation of space, it's the expansion of it.

kmarinas86,

What I meant to say was that you can't have space without matter, and vice versa. At least that's my uneducated take on it. I didn't know dark energy was considered to be the cause of space, or its expansion. I learned something already. Thanks.

 

[matt.o]

dark energy is not the cause of space, nor is it the cause of the expansion of space. Dark energy is thought to cause the acceleration of the expansion of space.

 

[roland]

Beyond the observable universe is the unobserved universe that we have yet to see. It simply goes on forever. If it is not infinite, where does it end? Think about it. It cannot possibly end.

 

[Chronos]

Beyond the observable universe is irrelevant. It has no consequences in our observable universe. This is a philosophical, not scientific issue.

 

[roland]

Hi Chronos. Yes you are right. However I do feel that this is a very negative answer to the original question.

 

[Chronos]

Agreed. But, I am sticking by my guns: non-observables are irrelevant.

 

[Silverbackman]

Chronos you do have a point. However just because this question overlaps a bit with philosophy it doesn't mean it is totally not science. We have no observable evidence that aliens exist, but nearly all scientists know even without observation that there has to be other life in the galaxy (or at least the universe).

So what would happen if you were to go theoretically in a spaceship beyond the observable universe? If space is more than empty space and you do keep going in black space, then I assume there definitely is something beyond this observable universe. I assume there maybe other universes perhaps billions of "light years" away.

I mean what else can explain the ends of the universe? It wouldn't make much sense to bump into a barrier would it? We see the ends of the universe as just black space, correct? There is no proof it is nothing more than just black space.

 

[Silverbackman]

The only boundaries are those set by the finite age of the universe (also known as "horizons"). For example, the "particle horizon" is the distance of the largest object whose light could have reached us since the beginning of time.




In the standard cosmological model, there is no "before" the Big Bang. Realistically, though, we can't say much of anything about the universe pre-inflation, so the best answer is that we don't know.

When we say "beginning of time" we really mean when this current manifest of particles arose, correct? We refer to time as light years traveling back to the big bang but I assume time in its broadest sense has existed for infinite and while the universe(s) may manifest have a finite time span (but in reality an infinite lifespan because of the perhaps cyclical constant flux). This also gets into philosophy as well.

 

[SpaceTiger]

When we say "beginning of time" we really mean when this current manifest of particles arose, correct?

We technically mean the time when the density of our cosmological model diverges (the initial singularity). On a linear timescale, this would appear coincident with the creation of matter, but we usually describe the evolution of the universe on a logarithmic scale.

We refer to time as light years traveling back to the big bang but I assume time in its broadest sense has existed for infinite and while the universe(s) may manifest have a finite time span (but in reality an infinite lifespan because of the perhaps cyclical constant flux). This also gets into philosophy as well.

In the standard model, there is a finite age to the universe if one uses the standard definition of time (a ticking clock, for example) for an observer with no velocity in comoving coordinates.

 

[kant]

Agreed. But, I am sticking by my guns: non-observables are irrelevant.

An apple falls from a tree, and there is no one to hear or observed the occurence. That does not negate the occurence of that event(apple falling) . I think you need to use your brain more, and stop pretending to be a robot.

 

[heliocentricprose]

An apple falls from a tree, and there is no one to hear or observed the occurence. That does not negate the occurence of that event(apple falling) . I think you need to use your brain more, and stop pretending to be a robot.

I agree. Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole. Since the expansion of the universe is greater than the speed of light(the speed of information in the universe), we will gradually be able to observe less and less of the universe. I don't think that means we should abandon the unobservables and work only in our 'tiny' seemingly uniform patch of space. Who knows? Maybe someday there will be a way to 'see' past the horizon.

 

[Burnsys]

I think this link is usefull to the thread.. it talks about inflation

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec28.html

Only the part of the universe that is inside the observable universe is "OUR universe".
Becouse space expanded faster that ligth we won't be able to "observe" anything beyon the age of the universe in light years (15 billions)

Anything else, exist or not, is irrelevant, becouse we will never be able to observe it.

In other universes with diferent rules, constants, dimensions etc (if they exists) the action of observe may doen't even make any sense.


http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/anthropic_bubbles.gif

 

[Burnsys]

I agree. Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole. Since the expansion of the universe is greater than the speed of light(the speed of information in the universe), we will gradually be able to observe less and less of the universe. I don't think that means we should abandon the unobservables and work only in our 'tiny' seemingly uniform patch of space. Who knows? Maybe someday there will be a way to 'see' past the horizon.

How do you "Study" something you can't interact with?