Can We Aim Our Telescopes Towards the Edge of the Universe?

AI Thread Summary
Telescopes cannot be aimed at the edge of the universe because it is not known if an edge exists; current understanding suggests there is neither a center nor an edge to the universe. The universe is likely finite but larger than what we can currently observe, as every direction appears similar. Hubble's deep field images capture photons that have traveled for over 13 billion years, but due to cosmic expansion, the galaxies emitting these photons are now much farther away. If an edge were to exist, it would be beyond the observable universe, currently estimated at over 40 billion light years. The nature of distance in cosmology differs significantly from everyday experiences due to this expansion.
@nonymous
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
If we are not located at the center of the universe, then when we look out into space are we not sometimes looking towards the center of the universe and at other times towards maybe the edge of the universe. Assume the universe is finite- since we put an age on it, and the fact that it is expanding. Then why can,t we aim our telescopes towards the edge of the universe, if there is one. The Hubble deep field pictures supposedly took in photons that had traveled for some 13 + billions years to get to the telescope, what does that mean? Thirteen billion years for the center of the universe, across the diameter, what?
Also if we could aim a telescope at the edge, would we maybe detect photons that have only traveled a max of a billion years to reacher the telescopes detectors.

This was filled with assumptions, but i think I got the question across.
 
Space news on Phys.org
It is not known whether or not the universe is infinite or finite but it is well known that there is no center and there is no edge. This can be with EITHER finite or infinite.

This question comes up here a couple of times a week, so a forum search will give you a ton of information.
 
As Phinds said it is unknown whether the universe is finite or infinite in size. However, it is known that if it is indeed finite, the size is bigger than we can observe. This is because every direction we look simply looks the same as the one before it. IE we can look just as far in every direction.

The Hubble deep field pictures supposedly took in photons that had traveled for some 13 + billions years to get to the telescope, what does that mean? Thirteen billion years for the center of the universe, across the diameter, what?

The photons from the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field have been traveling for a time period of 13 billion years or so. They have been in transit for that long just to get to us.

Also if we could aim a telescope at the edge, would we maybe detect photons that have only traveled a max of a billion years to reacher the telescopes detectors

IF there is an edge, it is further than the current estimated distance of 40+ billion light years, which is the distance from us here on Earth to the furthest we can see. Distance in cosmology is...different...than what you and I deal with here on Earth thanks to the expansion of the Universe. The photons that reached the Hubble Space Telescope traveled for 13 billion years, yet the galaxies they were emitted from are MUCH further away now, as expansion has moved them away from us over time.
 
thats pretty cool thanks
 
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
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##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?

Similar threads

Back
Top