Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Universe size

  1. Jul 2, 2012 #1
    I read that the radius of the universe is around 1.3x10^26 meters but I did not find how this size has been calculated.
    Thanks if you can explain to me
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 2, 2012 #2

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    There are numerous "calculations" of the size of the universe. NONE of them (at least by reputable sources) is THE radius, they are the MINIMUM radius.

    No one knows the size of the universe. The Observable universe is some 90 billion light years in diameter and various estimates put the minimum size of the universe as being that much to many orders of magnitude larger. Some believe it is infinite.
     
  4. Jul 2, 2012 #3
    if you prefer: What are the tools used by reputable sources to estimate the minimum radius of universe?
     
  5. Jul 2, 2012 #4

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    It's like religions. There are many of them and they contradict each other so I ignore them all. My own belief is that the universe is likely infinite but I have no facts to back that up so it is just an unfounded personal opinion. It may be finite but unbounded.
     
  6. Jul 2, 2012 #5

    bapowell

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    denism -- it's important to distinguish between the size of the universe and the size of the observable universe. To which are you referring?
     
  7. Jul 3, 2012 #6
    My question was about the total size, or more precisely: do we have (indirect) evidences that there is really something beyond the Hubble sphere (of radius c/H)
     
  8. Jul 3, 2012 #7
    The issue is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that there isn't. Earth is not in a privileged position; the notion that the Universe is perfectly spherical with Earth sitting in the centre (which is what "Hubble sphere = Universe" would imply) has no support, and there is no reason to believe that it is true. The likely topologies of the Universe wouldn't even permit such a thing.
     
  9. Jul 3, 2012 #8

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is plenty beyond the hubble sphere - all the way to the particle horizon.
     
  10. Jul 3, 2012 #9
    in my mind, the fact that universe size could be within c/H would not mean that we are at its centre if it is closed. If there is no reason to believe that it is true, conversely is there any support that there is plenty beyond. In fact, this belief is only based on the assumption that recessional velocities can exceed light speed but I never saw any observational support to this postulate
     
  11. Jul 3, 2012 #10

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    That's not an assumption or a "postulate", it is fact. The galaxies at the edge of our observable universe are receding from us at about 3c.
     
  12. Jul 3, 2012 #11
    thanks
    how this fact has been determined?...or indirectly infered?
     
  13. Jul 3, 2012 #12
    I looked at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshifts

    it is stated that for a flat Minkowski space and for light motion in the transverse direction
    1+z=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
    from which z is infinite when v=c
     
  14. Jul 3, 2012 #13

    bapowell

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  15. Jul 3, 2012 #14
    thank you very much. It is stated in this site that "For distant galaxies, v (or D) cannot be calculated from z without specifying a detailed model"
    Of course, if postulating Vrec=HD and H constant, one easily obtains Vrec > c beyond a certain distance, but this appears purely theoretical to me. I am afraid that there is not a single supporting observation in this story
     
  16. Jul 3, 2012 #15

    bapowell

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    And you say this why? Because wikipedia hasn't presented you with any? It would be wise to delve deeper before making such sweeping, contrarian statements.

    What would a single supporting observation look like to you?
     
  17. Jul 3, 2012 #16
    I would be very pleased seeing any supporting data!

    I did not want to be contrarian. Considering my poor knowledge in this field, I am sure that data (more convincing than the theoretical extension of Vrec = HD) should exist. This was precisely the purpose of my question
     
  18. Jul 3, 2012 #17

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    deniism, you should know (given your background) that nothing is ever proved in science. The best we can do is to have theoretical models that are consistent with observations.

    Good models of the universe are (perturbed) Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetimes, and, properly interpreted, the Hubble relationship is predicted by FRW models. Most cosmologist think that there are gigabytes of observational data that support FRW models.

    Also. you might be concerned about recessional velocities greater than c, because a law of physics is that "No physical velocity can exceed c."


    1) This a property of special relativity, and, as you have already been told, the universe follows general relativity, not special relativity. Special relativity is a local approximation to general relativity. In general relativity, no observer (including those in FRW spacetimes) ever measures the speed of a local particle to be greater than c. This is consistent with both the "no speed greater than c" aspect of special relativity, and the "special relativity is a local approximation in general relativity" aspect of general relativity.

    2) The term "velocity" is used in different ways in special and general relativity. The way "velocity" is used in general relativity is something like the way the term "velocity parameter" is used in special relativity, and, even in special relativity, velocity parameters can take on values that are greater than c.
     
  19. Jul 4, 2012 #18
    thank you very much for your kind answer George. In fact, I was not particularly afraid by recession velocities higher than c given that this limit does not apply to space expansion, but I just wondered (for other reasons) if Vrec > c were really observed because H has been proven to be lower than H0 in the past (expansion accelerates)
    I have an other question with respect to your answer: I wonder why SR is not sufficient for studying the geometry of expanding universe models, supposed to be isotropic and homogeneous as empty. General relativity deals with gravity?
     
  20. Jul 4, 2012 #19

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    SR does not take gravity into account. That was the whole point of GR.
     
  21. Jul 4, 2012 #20
    Yes. But precisely, all what I read about universe expansion and horizons, begins with a redefinition of the line element of SR (ds2=(cdt)2+a(t)2dl2)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Universe size
  1. Size of the Universe (Replies: 7)

  2. Size of the universe (Replies: 17)

  3. Size of the Universe (Replies: 14)

  4. Size of universe (Replies: 6)

  5. Size of the universe (Replies: 4)

Loading...