Is there an unseen part of the universe older than the known universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cjackson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of the universe originating from a singularity 13.8 billion years ago and expanding indefinitely. It raises questions about the Copernican principle, suggesting that our observable universe may be just a small part of a larger cosmos that extends beyond our cosmic horizon. Participants ponder whether anything beyond this horizon could be older than the known universe. The thread encourages readers to explore related discussions for a deeper understanding. Overall, it highlights the ongoing curiosity about the universe's structure and the limits of human observation.
cjackson
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
The best theories have the universe arising from a singularity 13.8 billion years ago, and have it expanding, becoming increasingly dilute and frigid for eternity. Do you think the Copernican principle holds for the universe and that we inhabit a small part of a vaster cosmos permanently beyond the cosmic horizon? Our observable universe had a beginning, but do you think what if anything lies beyond the horizon is older?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Do you think the Copernican principle holds for the universe and that we inhabit a small part of a vaster cosmos permanently beyond the cosmic horizon? Our observable universe had a beginning, but do you think what if anything lies beyond the horizon is older?
I suggest you start by reading this thread https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/effort-to-get-us-all-on-the-same-page-balloon-analogy.261161/

After you read that thread, if you still have questions, you can start a new thread with more focused questions in the cosmology forum.
 
Last edited:
Are you asking for peoples' opinions, or for the mainstream view of what's beyond the observable universe?
 
This thread is closed.
 
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...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
6K
Back
Top