What Is Beyond The Observable Universe?

[SpaceTiger]

When we say "beginning of time" we really mean when this current manifest of particles arose, correct?

We technically mean the time when the density of our cosmological model diverges (the initial singularity). On a linear timescale, this would appear coincident with the creation of matter, but we usually describe the evolution of the universe on a logarithmic scale.

We refer to time as light years traveling back to the big bang but I assume time in its broadest sense has existed for infinite and while the universe(s) may manifest have a finite time span (but in reality an infinite lifespan because of the perhaps cyclical constant flux). This also gets into philosophy as well.

In the standard model, there is a finite age to the universe if one uses the standard definition of time (a ticking clock, for example) for an observer with no velocity in comoving coordinates.

 

[kant]

Agreed. But, I am sticking by my guns: non-observables are irrelevant.

An apple falls from a tree, and there is no one to hear or observed the occurence. That does not negate the occurence of that event(apple falling) . I think you need to use your brain more, and stop pretending to be a robot.

 

[heliocentricprose]

An apple falls from a tree, and there is no one to hear or observed the occurence. That does not negate the occurence of that event(apple falling) . I think you need to use your brain more, and stop pretending to be a robot.

I agree. Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole. Since the expansion of the universe is greater than the speed of light(the speed of information in the universe), we will gradually be able to observe less and less of the universe. I don't think that means we should abandon the unobservables and work only in our 'tiny' seemingly uniform patch of space. Who knows? Maybe someday there will be a way to 'see' past the horizon.

 

[Burnsys]

I think this link is usefull to the thread.. it talks about inflation

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec28.html

Only the part of the universe that is inside the observable universe is "OUR universe".
Becouse space expanded faster that ligth we won't be able to "observe" anything beyon the age of the universe in light years (15 billions)

Anything else, exist or not, is irrelevant, becouse we will never be able to observe it.

In other universes with diferent rules, constants, dimensions etc (if they exists) the action of observe may doen't even make any sense.


http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/anthropic_bubbles.gif

 

[Burnsys]

I agree. Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole. Since the expansion of the universe is greater than the speed of light(the speed of information in the universe), we will gradually be able to observe less and less of the universe. I don't think that means we should abandon the unobservables and work only in our 'tiny' seemingly uniform patch of space. Who knows? Maybe someday there will be a way to 'see' past the horizon.

How do you "Study" something you can't interact with?

 

[Silverbackman]

How do you "Study" something you can't interact with?

We may not be able to observe it at the moment but we need to make the assumption something is there. We have never seen life outside our planet but we assume it exists and create ways to seek out and prove it. A similar thing should be done in cosmology. We should be making insturments that can help us study the beyond.

I think this link is usefull to the thread.. it talks about inflation

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec28.html

Only the part of the universe that is inside the observable universe is "OUR universe".
Becouse space expanded faster that ligth we won't be able to "observe" anything beyon the age of the universe in light years (15 billions)

Anything else, exist or not, is irrelevant, becouse we will never be able to observe it.

In other universes with diferent rules, constants, dimensions etc (if they exists) the action of observe may doen't even make any sense.http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/anthropic_bubbles.gif

Yes it maybe irrevelent and these other universes may contian different laws of Nature. However like alien life, I do think we will be able to learn about it in the future. We shouldn't give up. No one has ever seen a quark (correct me if I'm wrong) but we assume the microverse goes further.

If we had a spaceship that can do this, what do you think it will run into at the ends of the universe? Will the spaceship keep going or is it constricted to this universe only? What do you think?

 

[Burnsys]

An apple falls from a tree, and there is no one to hear or observed the occurence. That does not negate the occurence of that event(apple falling) . I think you need to use your brain more, and stop pretending to be a robot.

An apple falls from a tree and there is no one to hear or observe...
You have absolutly no way of knowing what "Reality" is... You will never know if the apple felt, or not, or if it exploded or get rotten...
With the same criteria i can say that beyond the observable horizon dragons fly and spit fire..

 

[SpaceTiger]

Let's keep in mind here that the part of the universe outside our "observable universe" is not completely disconnected from us. We're causally connected to it prior to inflation, so we have some inkling that it exists. There are, however, events that may never be observable. If the universe continues accelerating indefinitely, then a supernova outside of our horizon will never be observable from Earth (or what remains of it). We could, however, potentially observe a much younger version of the part of the universe where the supernova occurred. Without being able to see into the future, however, we can't say for sure whether or not the supernova itself will someday be observable.

 

[Burnsys]

We may not be able to observe it at the moment but we need to make the assumption something is there. We have never seen life outside our planet but we assume it exists and create ways to seek out and prove it. A similar thing should be done in cosmology. We should be making insturments that can help us study the beyond.

But you can't make an instrument to see beyond the observable universe, unless you can travel faster than the speed of light.

Yes it maybe irrevelent and these other universes may contian different laws of Nature. However like alien life, I do think we will be able to learn about it in the future. We shouldn't give up. No one has ever seen a quark (correct me if I'm wrong) but we assume the microverse goes further.

If i am not wrong, yes, we can see quarks in particle accelerators. But anyway if we can't "see" them directly we can see their trace becouse they interact with matter or energy we can observe...

If we had a spaceship that can do this, what do you think it will run into at the ends of the universe? Will the spaceship keep going or is it constricted to this universe only? What do you think?

i don't think there is a "Wall" at the end of the universe, i don't think it has a boundary. We live in a finite and unbounded universe. i guess if you start traveling let's say at. 0.99c for 15 billion years even if there is a boundary you will never be able to reach it. becouse the universe is expanding faster than c.

 

[kant]

An apple falls from a tree and there is no one to hear or observe...
You have absolutly no way of knowing what "Reality" is... You will never know if the apple felt, or not, or if it exploded or get rotten...
With the same criteria i can say that beyond the observable horizon dragons fly and spit fire..

i will play along with you, burnsys ( anyone can reply to me)

ok, we will use your analogy. Beyond the obversable universe, there is simply no way to confirm the existence of the dragon fly with a simple yes, or no answer. In otherword, the dragon fly ` s existence is uncertain. It is an unverifiable statement.The statement of the existence of the dragon fly is one that cannot be derived/answered/perdicted by the known axioms/"laws of nature". This doesn` t imply the non-existence of the dragon fly.

 

[Silverbackman]

But you can't make an instrument to see beyond the observable universe, unless you can travel faster than the speed of light.





If i am not wrong, yes, we can see quarks in particle accelerators. But anyway if we can't "see" them directly we can see their trace becouse they interact with matter or energy we can observe...




i don't think there is a "Wall" at the end of the universe, i don't think it has a boundary. We live in a finite and unbounded universe. i guess if you start traveling let's say at. 0.99c for 15 billion years even if there is a boundary you will never be able to reach it. becouse the universe is expanding faster than c.

Who knows, one day we may be able to make a tool that can travel more than the speed of light. Nothing is impossible. I'm sure if we were to go back in time back to when the Greeks tried to understand the universe, they probably would be quite blown away by the things we can do now and the information we have received from it. Back then it was thought that the Earth was one of the only worlds and that every other "light spheres" revolved around it. Similarly today we think that this universe maybe the only universe but I don't think we could ever know everything for sure. Science and learning is infinite and perhaps the goal of life in the end.

If the universe is unbounded I don't see how it can not be apart of a greater multiverse, don't you think? Ok perhaps our own universe is finite in terms of the extent of matter and particles, but apart of an absolute "omniverse" that may extend forever like the microverse perhaps.

So let us say you could theoretically travel beyond the speed of light, you do agree there wouldn't be a "barrier wall". Or universe will continue to expand forever and who knows, billions of years down the line it may expand into a different universe. What do you think?

 

[heliocentricprose]

An example of the relevance of the unobservable part of our universe is the total mass of universe. I think this and other characteristics of the universe need to be taken into account when studying cosmology. The fact remains, as already said, the observable universe IS affected by the unobservable universe. Gravity waves that have not yet reached us (because of the horizon), will affect us if inflation's acceleration ceases in the future.

Also, I have a question. The rate of expansion is accelerating, which implies that it is never constant. Is it plausible that it can slow down?

 

[kant]

Who knows, one day we may be able to make a tool that can travel more than the speed of light. Nothing is impossible.

In a irrational universe, everything is possible, there would be not laws of nature, and no science at all. The otherwise option is that universe is rational, and certains things is impossible.

I'm sure if we were to go back in time back to when the Greeks tried to understand the universe, they probably would be quite blown away by the things we can do now and the information we have received from it. Back then it was thought that the Earth was one of the only worlds and that every other "light spheres" revolved around it. Similarly today we think that this universe maybe the only universe but I don't think we could ever know everything for sure. Science and learning is infinite and perhaps the goal of life in the end.

Don t play drama with me. Science is very limited, because mainly sceinctist define the universe as being U. U = space+time+ energy. Physics as a science is limited by empirical observation, and to go beyond observation or U is not allowed.

If the universe is unbounded I don't see how it can not be apart of a greater multiverse, don't you think?

mutiverse is not physics.

Ok perhaps our own universe is finite in terms of the extent of matter and particles, but apart of an absolute "omniverse" that may extend forever like the microverse perhaps.

You ask your god. this cannot be answered by physic

 

[Chronos]

Nonsense. Your 'God' of logic appears to have feet of clay.

 

[kant]

^ what are you talking about now?

 

[Silverbackman]

In a irrational universe, everything is possible, there would be not laws of nature, and no science at all. The otherwise option is that universe is rational, and certains things is impossible.

You know there are ways around the speed of light like strings or wormholes. Science's is goal is to find the laws of nature yes. But finding ways to go around the laws of nature can be achieved. Gravity is a fundamental force that seems like we cannot overcome. However in the future anti-gravity maybe very possible. Seems like you’re dogmatic about science.

Don t play drama with me. Science is very limited, because mainly sceinctist define the universe as being U. U = space+time+ energy. Physics as a science is limited by empirical observation, and to go beyond observation or U is not allowed.

Don't know how what I said was "drama". But if you do know anything about science there are many concepts in the past that weren't observable at first but later became observable. Dark matter seems invisible, so should we give up looking for dark matter just because we don't have tools right now? Science changes from time to time and soon we will find a way to do this I'm sure.

mutiverse is not physics.

Yes "mutiverse" is not physics. Multiverse will become physics in time perhaps like black holes and perhaps even dark matter. M-theory, which is a theory in development definitely shows that their maybe other universes.

You ask your god. this cannot be answered by physic

In time it can be known. Who knows when but with negative attitudes toward it like your own will definitely delay things.

 

[kant]

You know there are ways around the speed of light like strings or wormholes. Science's is goal is to find the laws of nature yes. But finding ways to go around the laws of nature can be achieved. Gravity is a fundamental force that seems like we cannot overcome. However in the future anti-gravity maybe very possible. Seems like you’re dogmatic about science.

You cannot go around the "laws", because they form the foundation for the perdictive system in physics. The "laws" are determined empirical, generalized, and must be accepted on faith( based on those generalization). If you want an analogy, if the statement "1+1 is not to 2 " is false, math would not exist, because all other mathematics that based on it would no longer be ture.

Don't know how what I said was "drama". But if you do know anything about science there are many concepts in the past that weren't observable at first but later became observable. Dark matter seems invisible, so should we give up looking for dark matter just because we don't have tools right now? Science changes from time to time and soon we will find a way to do this I'm sure.

You miss my point: science is limited.

If science is based on the axoimatic/"laws of nature" generalization of
nature, all there is that comes with the word "science" is open to doubt, as the foundation( fundamental generalization: physical law) that supports it.

Yes "mutiverse" is not physics. Multiverse will become physics in time perhaps like black holes and perhaps even dark matter. M-theory, which is a theory in development definitely shows that their maybe other universes.

Physic is not math. Physics is limitated by its empirical, observational nature. If we can t observe/verify an assertions for things that has no effect on us, it can t be established. strings, m- thory, multiverse ...etc might have nice sounding names, but they are not rooted in empirical observation.

In time it can be known. Who knows when but with negative attitudes toward it like your own will definitely delay things.

my point: What is 'outside' the universe is not something that could be verified. It is not possible to answer such questions.

There are inherent limitations to reasoning itself in science.

 

[Rake]

forgive me if I am mistaken, however does the principle of entanglement not imply that there is some kind of unobservable physical system that connects particles and if so does this not also imply that causality is not the final say on what we can ultimately glean from "reality" (whatever that means)? I understand that presently this argument is more of a phylosophical rather than scientific one...

 

[ianthow]

What if:

1) We cannot comprehend what is beyond this universe and someONE or someTHING prevent us from seeing beyond this universe? The science and technology that we all believe in says that it is impossible to see and go beyond this universe (e.g: the universe is infinite, there is no beginning and end, etc), why are all this "rules" in place at the begining? Can we comprehend what we don't understand?

2) If we can see beyond this universe, will it do more harm than good?

3) We are all creatures on Discovery Channel and are being study or observe by someONE or THING? How do we know that we are living in a world created not by random but with a purpose? And what is that purpose?

Science is truly limited in explaining the world beyond this universe, science is based on reasoning, logic, emphirical, observation. IF you do a search on "what is beyond this universe" on Google, you will find that most answers say "more universe" or "there is no beyond as the universe is infinite" or "nothing".

To really answer the question of what's beyond this universe, we have to think beyond science but then what if we are by default unable to think beyond as the someONE or someTHING who created us prevent us from thinking beyond? The answer might lie beyond the logic, reasoning and science that we are all familiar with.

 

[jon_pan]

to my understanding from research:
(people who know what they're talking about, please correct me if I am wrong)


Current Big Bang cosmology defines universe as "everything that exists anywhere" "Finite and Spherical."


the big-bang and the extent of our observable universe is finite and spherical, but not necesarrily everything that exists. Our universe as far as we can observe, is one of an infinite amount of finite sphere's of matter, in an infinite space where time is eternal and continuous.

so to answer your question, i would say probably the same sh.it you see around here. (around here in a cosmological sense of course)

 

[Tojen]

ianthow,

There's a distinct odour of New Age-ism in your post. New Age "ideas" denigrate, at the same time, science ("we have to think beyond science") and religion ("the someONE or someTHING who created us prevent us from thinking beyond") to pave the way for its own agenda ("The answer might lie beyond the logic, reasoning and science...").

 

[patrik75]

Could it be that it is not a relevant question to ask? I am thinking of entanglement and distance as an "illusion". Right or wrong?

 

[Soul Surfer]

We may not be able to see directly or measure the properties of anything outside our observable universe but we can predict potential properies based on the fact that is probably made of the same "stuff" that our observable universe is made of. Bearing in mind of course that conditions may well exist where the current physical constants we observe may be tweaked a bit.

Or actual universe may well extend a long way beyond our observable universe but there is strong evidence that it had some sort of beginning, is evolving and changing with time and will eventually have an end.

This suggests that our universe is likely to be a finite object in a "multiverse" of indefinite extent.

We also have strong evidence that there are separate "universes" budding from our universe in the form of black holes. This tends to strengthen this feeling that multiple universes exist.

This makes me favour an overall fractal structure for the multiverse in which the laws of physics have evolved to produce maximum numbers of structures of maximum longevity following the general rules of "evolutionary metaphysics".

You can find a bit more about this on my website but the basic thinking behind "evolutionary metaphysics" is to look at the processes that would operate in any system with physical laws, to create complexity by exploiting metastable and recycling processes to extend the life of what would otherwise be only transient and random intereactions.

 

[SpaceTiger]

We also have strong evidence that there are separate "universes" budding from our universe in the form of black holes. This tends to strengthen this feeling that multiple universes exist.

What evidence is that? Last I heard, that was only speculation.

 

[Soul Surfer]

The evidence is purely in the properties of the object. Any activities inside an independant universe can by definition never be observable from our universe. All that can be done is theoretical modelling which is not subject to such barriers.

A black hole is a construct into which mass may pass and we will not be able to observe it altough it does have still an effect in the form of a gravitational field in our universe.

It is true that once our universe has cooled down sufficiently (a long time from now) the black hole will start to evaporate very slowly and will eventually vanish but the time that even a stellar mass black hole will take to do this is very many orders of magnitude longer than the current age of our universe.

Anything inside the hole will not be able to see out and will be largely unaware of the size of the space because the gravitiational field will tend to distort things so it looks very much larger. OK there may be a certain amount of high energy inflow from outside in the form of things that look like cosmic rays. but their source will not be detectable.

If that isn't a specification for an independant universe I don't know what is!

OK I will concede that it may well be possible to measure that the space is finite and see a retreating set of echoes of one's self at greater and greater distances like looking into a set of parallel mirrors but since when has that been a bar to declaring a universe. I am aware of at least three occasions in cosmology over the last hundred years or so when there was serious consideration that we might be able to do something like this in our universe (one of them is around now)!

 

[SpaceTiger]

The evidence is purely in the properties of the object. Any activities inside an independant universe can by definition never be observable from our universe. All that can be done is theoretical modelling which is not subject to such barriers.

Anything for which there is no observational test falls into the realm of philosophy and using words like "evidence" here is deceptive.

Perhaps pervect can give more detail, but to the best of my knowledge, the standard model of the universe and the standard model of a black hole are not compatible with one another unless one invokes a wormhole connection, which is in itself a matter of pure speculation.

A black hole is a construct into which mass may pass and we will not be able to observe it altough it does have still an effect in the form of a gravitational field in our universe.

The standard definition of a black hole gives it only three properties: charge, mass, and spin. The only property we think we've been able to measure so far (for some black holes) is mass. These measurements don't tell us anything about whether or not the black hole has spawned a new universe.

It is true that once our universe has cooled down sufficiently (a long time from now) it will start to evaporate very slowly and will eventually vanish

Based on what? An extrapolation of \Lambda CDM? There's no reason to think that the current model of the universe will be good for all time.

If that isn't a specification for an independant universe I don't know what is!

You've granted black holes and our universe several rather arbitrary properties in the process of getting there.

Is it possible that the formation of a black hole spawns a new universe? Sure! Is there any evidence for it? No. At this point, it's pure speculation -- it doesn't come naturally from standard theory and it hasn't made any predictions that have been confirmed by experiment.

 

[Soul Surfer]

How then do YOU define the properites of an independant universe?

Of course this is pure speculation the original question posed here was one that could only be answered with pure speculation because it dealt only with unobservables.

Mathematical modelling is a perfectly acceptable approach to coping with unobservables our current cosmological understanding is strongly dependant on using the matematival modelling of galaxy strucures and clustering to "prove" that our theories about the composition of the universe fit what we observe

 

[Soul Surfer]

Note I tend to use the term our universe to mean everything that we can observe and strongly infer (like areas hidden by inflation) and the multiverse to mean everything there is.

I personally favour a multiverse that obeys the perfect cosmological principle it that on a large enough scale it is generally similar for all time and space and has evolved to be so. it contains very many evolving universes (like our own) at all stages of development and is probably fractally structured.

I would strongly prefer to end up with an aspect of scale invariance in which the space and time were a property of the universe and the inside of a budding univese was of indefinite size to those who were inside it.

 

[SpaceTiger]

How then do YOU define the properites of an independant universe?

I'm not bickering with your definition of "independent universe", I'm bickering with what seemed to be a claim that there is observational evidence for them. If you acknowledge it as speculation then I have no quarrel.

 

[Silverbackman]

How could a black hole "spawn" another universe? I would think it would lead to another universe perhaps? And who is to say black holes in other universes are like our own. Yes it is speculation at the moment.