Can We See Beyond the Voids in Our Universe?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter David Fosco
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the visibility and nature of cosmic voids in the universe, questioning whether we can see beyond these regions of low matter density. Participants explore the implications of voids on our understanding of the universe's structure and the propagation of light through these areas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the visibility of what lies beyond cosmic voids, suggesting that these regions may be perceived as empty or devoid of matter.
  • Others argue that voids, being areas with less material, do not obstruct light, allowing us to see through them.
  • One participant emphasizes that cosmic voids are vast spaces that can contain galaxies, but their density is significantly lower than the average density of the universe.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of voids in astronomy, with references to their scale and the presence of cosmic dust.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the original poster's intent and the specific voids being referenced.
  • One participant corrects another's misunderstanding about light propagation, clarifying that light does not require a medium to travel.
  • Historical perspectives on voids are mentioned, with some participants questioning the relevance of these views in a scientific context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the nature of voids and their implications for visibility in the universe. There is no consensus on the original poster's intent or the specific characteristics of voids being discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the need for clarity regarding the definition of voids and their implications for light propagation, indicating that assumptions about the nature of these regions may vary.

David Fosco
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
What's on the other side
Is there a reason why we can't see what's on the other side of these Voids in Space? Are we to Believe it is Void to the End of our view of the universe?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Tell us what voids you are talking about. Why do you capitalize common nouns and the verb "believe"?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn and russ_watters
We can see what's on the other side of these voids. Why do you think we can't?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
David Fosco said:
Is there a reason why we can't see what's on the other side of these Voids in Space?
A reference or link is needed here. It isn't at all clear what voids you are talking about.
David Fosco said:
Are we to Believe it is Void to the End of our view of the universe?
Everywhere we look we see the cosmic microwave background. That's as far as we can see.
 
David Fosco said:
Is there a reason why we can't see what's on the other side of these Voids in Space? Are we to Believe it is Void to the End of our view of the universe?

Voids are large volumes of space with much less material in them than average. This means that there is even less material to absorb or scatter light than the rest of the universe, so we can easily see through them.
 
Ibix said:
Everywhere we look we see the cosmic microwave background. That's as far as we can see.

Drakkith said:
Voids are large volumes of space with much less material in them than average. This means that there is even less material to absorb or scatter light than the rest of the universe, so we can easily see through them.
Correct.

{Edit: Historical note removed. /Pre-Enlightenment scholars and philosophers spread much ink emphasizing and then denying voids existed based on the notion that the creator's light permeates the universe. A void without light/love contradicts universal redemption./}

Detecting the cosmic background radiation in all directions, and with predicted variations (anisotropy), {Edit: ibid. /replaced those old notions while ironically coinciding with the historical term: Enlightenment/}.

Here is a colored map of background radiation derived from the COBE anisotropy data.
1609458347048.png


(The black corners appear for contrast and do not represent voids)
 
Last edited:
Klystron said:
Pre-Enlightenment scholars and philosophers spread much ink emphasizing and then denying voids existed based on the notion that the creator's light permeates the universe. A void without light/love contradicts universal redemption.

This is a science forum. It is pointless to bring up religious nonsense.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff, Imager, Hamiltonian and 3 others
David Fosco said:
Summary:: What's on the other side

Is there a reason why we can't see what's on the other side of these Voids in Space? Are we to Believe it is Void to the End of our view of the universe?
There isn't true at all! These voids in space are the vacuum whom we talk about everywhere. This vacuum, unfortunately, isn't all absence of matter, in fact you have to take in account the possibility to meet some cosmic dust or something else. But it doesn't matter, the important stuff, here, is that there is approximatively nothing. Sounds cannot travel in the void, space in which there are no atoms, but light can. This vacuum is also in the space between two "solar" sistem, and look, we can watch stars!
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: davenn
vincenzosassone said:
There isn't true at all! These voids in space are the vacuum whom we talk about everywhere. This vacuum, unfortunately, isn't all absence of matter, in fact you have to take in account the possibility to meet some cosmic dust or something else. But it doesn't matter, the important stuff, here, is that there is approximatively nothing. Sounds cannot travel in the void, space in which there are no atoms, but light can. This vacuum is also in the space between two "solar" sistem, and look, we can watch stars!
I think the definition of void in astronomy has slightly different meaning. It is relevant to very large scales, tens of megaparsecs. From wiki:
Cosmic voids are vast spaces between filaments (the largest-scale structures in the universe), which contain very few or no galaxies. Voids typically have a diameter of 10 to 100 megaparsecs; particularly large voids, defined by the absence of rich superclusters, are sometimes called supervoids. They have less than one tenth of the average density of matter abundance that is considered typical for the observable universe.
So the void can even contain entire galaxy, or more. What is important, the density of such region is much lower than average density of the (observable) universe.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vincenzosassone and phinds
  • #10
lomidrevo said:
I think the definition of void in astronomy has slightly different meaning. It is relevant to very large scales, tens of megaparsecs. From wiki:

So the void can even contain entire galaxy, or more. What is important, the density of such region is much lower than average density of the (observable) universe.
Very well, here I can't say anything...you're right. I was wrong, voids are regions very big in the scale of superclusters, if I understood correctly. Anways, now I read more about voids to fill this missing knowledge, many thanks for telling me this, and I also understood something else. Now I know that this voids are something bigger than galaxies, for this reason we cannot take in account them, but there is something in our galaxy of very important: vacuum between solar sistems. Have you ever wondered what there is between them? Now I tried to google it and I discovered there are many meteors with dust and gas... We cannot talk about total vacuum but there is more vacuum than mass, this means that atoms there cannot build a way for stars, or better, for their light. Maybe this is the most powerful proof that I can put here...
Even if there is another thing that I can say: we can watch the Sun, and between us and the Sun there are only two planets, something of useless to talk about and the famous cosmic dust, that not even in this case is useful because it doesn't cover oll the place. I'm sorry for the lenght, but I want to explain as detailed as possible this topic without imperfections. Obviously, if there are some imperfections, please tell me what is imperfect because this is all I know.Many thanks again! :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lomidrevo
  • #11
vincenzosassone said:
Very well, here I can't say anything...you're right. I was wrong
No worries, nobody knows everything.

vincenzosassone said:
Now I know that this voids are something bigger than galaxies, for this reason we cannot take in account them
As OP hasn't interacted with us at all, we don't know what he actually meant by void.

vincenzosassone said:
vacuum between solar sistems. Have you ever wondered what there is between them? Now I tried to google it and I discovered there are many meteors with dust and gas... We cannot talk about total vacuum
Sure, the space is not fully empty. But in average, it is much better vacuum than we are able to prepare in labs here on Earth.

vincenzosassone said:
this means that atoms there cannot build a way for stars, or better, for their light.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Light doesn't need any "way" build by atoms to propagate. Light travels in vacuum. I guess it is just typo, because in post #8 you have it correct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vincenzosassone
  • #12
lomidrevo said:
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Light doesn't need any "way" build by atoms to propagate. Light travels in vacuum. I guess it is just typo, because in post #8 you have it correct.
No, it isn't... In my 8th post, an in the 10th too, I only wanted to reply to the guy in the 1st post. There is something of very weird:
David Fosco said:
Summary:: What's on the other side

Is there a reason why we can't see what's on the other side of these Voids in Space?
lomidrevo said:
As OP hasn't interacted with us at all, we don't know what he actually meant by void.
I don't know the meaning of the word OP, but if you mean David Fosco, I absolutely agree. This is the reason of my 10th post, I tried to find a way to show why light travel in the vacuum and in the voids too
 
  • #13
vincenzosassone said:
I don't know the meaning of the word OP

It means the Original Poster--the person who started this thread. Which would be @David Fosco in this case, yes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vincenzosassone
  • #14
vincenzosassone said:
I don't know the meaning of the word OP, but if you mean David Fosco, I absolutely agree. This is the reason of my 10th post, I tried to find a way to show why light travel in the vacuum and in the voids too
As @PeterDonis explained, I meant Original Poster. OP can also mean Original Post, so you need to take the context into account.

OK, I just want to make sure that you do not require dust, atoms or any other form of matter to allow propagation of light in vacuum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vincenzosassone
  • #15
vincenzosassone said:
I tried to find a way to show why light travel in the vacuum and in the voids too

I don't think there is any need to "find a way" for light to travel through vacuum or voids. Note that, as was pointed out in post #3 of this thread, the OP was mistaken in believing that we cannot see through the voids in our universe. We can, and that's common knowledge.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vincenzosassone and lomidrevo

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
774
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
5K