Clarification about the size of the Universe

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter amorphos_b
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the size of the universe, particularly in relation to the observable universe and the dynamics of galaxies. Participants explore concepts of cosmic expansion, the implications of galaxy collisions, and the challenges in estimating the number of galaxies and their distances in a curved spacetime framework.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant visualizes the universe as conical, suggesting that if we could see galaxies as they are now, the universe would appear vastly larger, with straight cones instead of shrinking ones.
  • Another participant questions the basis for the conical visualization and suggests that the initial post contains personal speculation that may not be appropriate for the discussion.
  • A later reply notes that distance in curved spacetime is complex and confirms that observable galaxies are now further away due to cosmic expansion, estimating the observable universe's radius at about 45 billion light years.
  • Participants discuss the dynamics of galaxy collisions, with one asserting that naive models may not yield plausible results and suggesting that counting galaxies is a more reliable method for estimating their number.
  • Another participant proposes estimating galaxy numbers from the average density of the universe, emphasizing that such estimates come with significant error bars.
  • One participant raises a hypothetical scenario of a universe with only five stars, arguing that it is possible to describe the universe without needing anything outside of it, while another cautions that speculation without sufficient mathematical understanding can lead to confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the visualization of the universe and the implications of galaxy dynamics. There is no consensus on the validity of speculative ideas presented, and the discussion remains unresolved on several points.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the complexity of measuring distances in curved spacetime, the dependence on models for estimating galaxy numbers, and the unresolved nature of speculation versus established scientific understanding.

amorphos_b
Messages
34
Reaction score
3
Clarification upon size of universe
when we look at distant galaxies we are looking back in time to an ever shrinking universe. Which I would visualise as conical. If then, we could see all the galaxies as they really are right now, then surely those cones would all disappear, and the universe would be vastly bigger? e.g. by the same degree as the cones reduce over time, the universe would be at least that much greater in size. The cones in every direction would be straight instead.
Secondly some galaxies crash into others, and maybe as a result some perhaps split off – if e.g. a galaxy was traveling in a different direction, some of the velocity would push or pull some stars away from others. Even if we don’t ever get more galaxies, we would get less from collisions.
So how can we know how big the universe is now, and how many galaxies it is composed of?
 
Space news on Phys.org
What research have you done on this? the age/size of the universe is a common topic so should not be hard to find good info.
 
Last edited:
amorphos_b said:
Which I would visualise as conical.
Why? Where are you getting this from?

amorphos_b said:
If then, we could see all the galaxies as they really are right now, then surely those cones would all disappear, and the universe would be vastly bigger? e.g. by the same degree as the cones reduce over time, the universe would be at least that much greater in size. The cones in every direction would be straight instead.

Secondly some galaxies crash into others, and maybe as a result some perhaps split off – if e.g. a galaxy was traveling in a different direction, some of the velocity would push or pull some stars away from others. Even if we don’t ever get more galaxies, we would get less from collisions.
This all looks like personal speculation, which is off limits here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
As noted above, there's quite a lot of speculation in what you wrote. Answering the answerable questions that I see:

Distance in a curved spacetime is a complicated concept. You are correct that things that look like they are (e.g.) 10 billion light years away are now further away due to expansion. Our models predict that the observable universe currently has a radius of about 45 billion light years.

Secondly, galaxy dynamics is complicated. I don't think any naive model of galaxies colliding with each other will ever tell you anything plausible. To get an estimate of the number of galaxies we simply count them. If the number density changes with distance (which it probably will, since we're looking back in time) then we can derive an estimate of the current density and multiply by the volume of the observable universe. I doubt it's an exact science, which is why the hundred billion number you quoted in your last thread has only one significant figure.
 
You could also estimate galaxy numbers from the average density of the universe, which you can estimate from the recession rates. Divide that density by the average mass of a galaxy to get the number of galaxies per unit volume. Again, the error bars will be sizeable.
 
amorphos_b said:
if we imagine that there are only 5 stars in the universe, it is rather hard to imagine that there is nothing outside of universe.
It doesn't matter how you vary the content of the universe, you never need anything outside it to explain anything. We can make accurate predictions with only the universe and the stuff in it.

A universe consisting of only five stars would not have a curved space (at least not in the sense that the term is used in cosmology - it would not even have a uniquely identifiable notion of "space"). It would be difficult to see where one could start to end up with such a thing - but you can describe it without reference to anything outside the universe.

I'm afraid you are running into a fairly common problem, which is that this kind of thing is interesting and you want to speculate about it, but you haven't studied enough maths to properly understand the models and consequently your speculation instantly wanders into the weeds. It's like the difference between listening to music and playing an instrument. Any fool can hit a button on a media player, but you have to put in some hours if you want to be able to play even in the back room of a pub.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K