I Does the universe have a definite "size"?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter ScottVal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of the universe's size, specifically the claim that it has a definite width of 92 billion light years. Participants clarify that this measurement refers to the observable universe, which is limited by the finite speed of light and the universe's age, rather than indicating a physical edge. They explain that if the universe is not flat, it could be analogous to a three-dimensional sphere without an edge. The consensus suggests that while the observable universe has boundaries, the universe itself may be infinite in extent. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the distinction between observable limits and the true nature of the universe's size.
ScottVal
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
There's a YouTube video which says the universe is 92 billion light years wide; is this true?
Hello-
I just watched (or tried to watch) a YouTube video by Fermilab, in which the speaker states that the universe has a definite "width" of 92 billion light years. I could only watch about half of it because more and more terms were used which it am not familiar with. Besides, his pedantic nature is very annoying. I made the following comment on YouTube:

You lost me when you talked about "space expanding." I guess the video is meant for people who already understand that concept (which I don't). However, I pondered the idea of the universe having finite size several years ago, and got some help from some people on a physics forum, and I concluded that the question is sort of a paradox, because, if the universe had a finite size, you could imagine an inhabited planet on the edge of the universe, and the people who lived there would see the cosmos only on one side of their celestial sphere, which wouldn't make much sense. I think it makes more sense to consider the universe as having an indefinite size. I.e., you see galaxies in all directions, no matter where you are.

The video has about 4000 comments, so I'm not expecting anyone to reply to my comment. However, this forum seems like a smaller group, and I was wondering what you all think of this...
-Scott V.
 
Space news on Phys.org
The observable universe is 92 billion lightyears across.
 
Your assumption that the size is finite implies there is an edge. However if the universe is not flat, like a three dimensional analog of the surface of a sphere, there will not be an edge.
 
mathman said:
Your assumption that the size is finite implies there is an edge. However if the universe is not flat, like a three dimensional analog of the surface of a sphere, there will not be an edge.
Based on current observations, if this is the case this 3-sphere is significantly larger than 92 billion lightyears. The statement in the video is about the observable universe.
 
From what we understand, space is infinite in every direction. The video from Fermilabs was indeed talking about the observable universe, which is a sphere of about 92 billion light years. The reason that the observable universe is this size is because the speed of light is finite and there was a beginning of time. We simply can't see things further away than that because there hasn't been enough time for light from beyond that edge to reach us, but it's still out there.

This would be true regardless of whether or not space is expanding (which it is.)
 
I think I see now, that the implication is not that there is an "edge" to the universe 92 billion light years away (which wouldn't make sense), but that the "observable" universe seems to be bounded by a sphere 92 BLY in radius, simply because of the age of the universe, etc. Thanks.
 
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##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
58
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
103
Views
10K
Back
Top