Could future technology test what lies beyond the observable universe?

[adamysy]

TL;DR

Could future technology allow us to test whether anything exists beyond the observable universe? Our current limits may be limits of technology, not necessarily limits of what can be discovered

I have been thinking about a question: Could future technology allow us to test whether anything exists beyond the observable universe?

I think that our inability to detect or test something today does not necessarily mean that it will always be impossible. Our current technology has limits, but those limits may change as science and technology develop.

Perhaps future telescopes, detectors, or completely new methods of observation could give us information that we cannot obtain today. Even if we cannot directly observe beyond the observable universe, maybe we could discover indirect signals or effects that help us understand whether there is anything beyond it.

I am not claiming that something definitely exists beyond the observable universe. I am suggesting that we should keep investigating the question instead of assuming that today's technological limits are permanent.

What do you think? Could future technology give us a way to test this question?

 

[anuttarasammyak]

Area of observable universe is spreading just now. We may be able to find some scientific treasures in new area in future. That seems exciting enough to me.

Time machine could be convenient to observe well enlarged observable universe. We can do the same in current physics by staying near above event horizon of BH in some designed time and coming back.

 

[Bandersnatch]

As was mentioned above, the observable universe is not of a fixed size. The farthest radiation received today - the CMB - arrives from beyond what was the observable universe yesterday, and will tomorrow arrive from beyond our observable universe right now.
You don't need new technology to probe ever father beyond the present-day boundary. Just a bit of patience.

But if you're thinking of employing new techniques towards observing on a given day what will only be observable the day after - then that's hoping one day to be able to receive a signal before it gets here.
It's a bit of a contradiction, that is.

I suppose another way to interpret the question is to ask whether the ever-receding boundary of observability that is the CMB, needs to be such a boundary. Here, new methods of observation could help 'see' beyond the primordial barrier for electromagnetic radiation, perhaps utilising neutrinos instead of photons in our detectors.
You'd still have the boundary constantly recede and encompass more, and still be constrained by the inability to catch a signal that hasn't yet made it here. But in a real sense you'd be able to see beyond what is currently possible - to probe earlier states of the universe, before it stopped being opaque to light.

 

[FactChecker]

Another view:
Anything near the limit of what we "see" now is really the result of our interpretation using a lot of manipulation and modeling. As our models and techniques improve, we will be able to "see" farther.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

TL;DR: Could future technology allow us to test whether anything exists beyond the observable universe? Our current limits may be limits of technology, not necessarily limits of what can be discovered

Could future technology allow us to test whether anything exists beyond the observable universe?

This question seems more about language than technology. When we test for something, and the test is positive, doesn't that mean we've made an observation?

The answer to your question depends on what you mean by beyond the observable universe. If you mean regions of this universe that we are able to observe, then yes. In fact, you don't have to wait for the future. It's happening now. For example, the James Webb telescope is allowing us to see regions we couldn't see before, and continues to do so.

On the other hand, if by beyond the observable universe you mean stuff we cannot ever in principle observe, then no. For example, if we define our universe to be everything can or ever will be able to observe, then stuff outside our universe will never, by definition, ever be observable.

 

[Roberto Pavani]

Observable universe ≠ universe observed today ≠ universe observed in the future.

$\text{Universe observed today} \subset \text{Universe observed in the future} \subseteq \text{Observable universe}$
In a $\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ universe, depending on the behaviour of $a(t)$, there may also be regions that will never become observable.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Observable universe ≠ universe observed today

Unless you mean something trivial, like how many galaxies we have pictures of, then that's pretty much what it is. It's the extent of the base of our past light cone. Also synonymous with the particle horizon. That's the standard nomenclature, no?
For observable in principle, we have event horizon.

 

[Roberto Pavani]

I agree regarding the standard nomenclature. My comment was aimed at the OP's question, which suggests that those distinctions may not have been intended.
Otherwise, the question itself would be largely a matter of definition.