What Is Beyond The Observable Universe?

[DevilsAvocado]

DevilsAvocado (do I really need to call you that...can I just call you Dave or something?)

bapowell, you can call me anything you like, as long I as understand you’re addressing me (and that it’s not the 'usual' name-calling ). Dave is OK!

Anyhow, this is getting real interesting, so I think I’ll pop in for a sec...

Decoupling happened everywhere at once (roughly) in the universe, whether it was finite or infinite.

This is the magic (at least to me): happened + everywhere + infinite

I’ve been pondering 'some' over this. It’s not only a question of decoupling, it’s question of; how do we propagate the cosmological principle + the laws of physics + everything else, that’s needed for a "working universe" – (almost) simultaneously in an infinite universe – when we know that the word 'NOW' is already completely useless in our 'little' local universe...?

I’m complete and utterly lost here. Some say a really #*$&@ big inflation could fix this... but I doubt it...

Any ideas...


Edit: Maybe DAve or DA’ve is better... ;)

 

[pixchips]

Beyond The Original Question[/B]"...

Okay, I was thinking of that anyway. But it does seem that 'what's beyond the observable universe' has to have a lot to do with what actually happened when BB started. On the other hand, the eventual evolution of bunny rabbits hopping around pastural fields also has a lot to do with the BB, and I don't think you'd let me pursue that topic right here. So I'm off to a new thread as soon as I get my afternoon chores done.

...

I think the main difference here is not whether the universe is finite vs. infinite, but whether the whole universe is larger than our observable universe. Decoupling happened everywhere at once (roughly) in the universe, whether it was finite or infinite. If our observable universe is 'all there is', then yes, this would coincide with having occurred within a finite sphere. However, the fact that we still see the CMB means that the CMB photons that we observe today originated outside of our horizon at decoupling. That's one way we know the difference. But, there's no way at present to determine whether the universe is truly infinite or just really #*$&@ big.

Okay, I was afraid of this. The right answer is probably in the middle. If it is, then the universe isn't infinite, it's just really really big. And for us, that's practically the same as infinite. But when we ask, 'What's beyond the observable universe?', I still think there's a difference between 'more of the same forever' and 'more of the same, up to a point'. Seems like the latter is the best answer we can give, but may not actually be a scientific question if there's no way to test it.

Thanks much for your thoughts,
I'm off to other threads ...

Dave

 

[bapowell]

DA've,
Sorry to take so long in replying. Couple things:

Sure, there's always conceptual trouble with an infinite space. However, nothing prohibits us from defining a time slicing such that all comoving observers are inertial. Then, there's a common time that all such observers can use, and decoupling could in principle occur simultaneously everywhere (that this slicing is defined) simultaneously. In the absence of perturbations, one can argue that this decoupling could occur simultaneously in any patch that is sufficiently uniform. Inflation could be invoked to prepare such a patch. Of course, the real universe isn't that simple, which is why I said "roughly" in my original post. Perturbations cause some regions to decouple sooner than others, both for microphysical reasons and because of the good old time dilation associated with the overdensities.

 

[pixchips]

Thanks for the clarification, Bapowell. I'm interested in understanding more about the time slicing you mention. This may not be the place for such a discussion, but do you have a good reference or pointer? I will try some more googling.

Dave

 

[bapowell]

Sure pixchips. This just different language for choosing a coordinate system. It is also referred to as choosing a spacetime foliation, or foliating spacetime. There are several good reviews on the arXiv: I'm not sure what level of detail you're interested in. There have also been some discussions about foliation here on the forum -- I participated in one a while back: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=381521

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... But it does seem that 'what's beyond the observable universe' has to have a lot to do with what actually happened when BB started. On the other hand, the eventual evolution of bunny rabbits hopping around pastural fields also has a lot to do with the BB, and I don't think you'd let me pursue that topic right here. So I'm off to a new thread as soon as I get my afternoon chores done.

pixchips, don’t take this too seriously, it was more of a 'joke' than anything else. I for one, have done this 'hijacking' numerous times... sorry if I gave the wrong 'impression'. Let’s hope the mentors don’t notice us now...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... I'm interested in understanding more about the time slicing you mention.

Maybe this will work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_observer"

 

[DevilsAvocado]

DA've,
Sorry to take so long in replying.

No worries mate!

In the absence of perturbations, one can argue that this decoupling could occur simultaneously in any patch that is sufficiently uniform. Inflation could be invoked to prepare such a patch.

Okay, that’s what’s been running around in my head for awhile... to get the almost smooth initial conditions, we need inflation to "stretch the sheet out" almost perfectly, leaving just a few "wrinkles"... but then some argue that the pre-conditions needed for this inflation to ever occur, is even more 'remarkable' than the resulting smoothness...

And if we add 'infinite-factor' to this – I do get some kind of 'wooziness'...

Some "personal speculations" to maybe get this into my head:
Could we think of the 'propagation' as some kind of a 'symmetry breaking', in the quantum-fluctuations of the 'primordial soup'...?? Like a "giant infinite lake"... the temperature is getting lower, and lower, and lower, and suddenly the whole lake is frozen, roughly at once...? (= 'symmetry breaking') ...or...??

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This just different language for choosing a coordinate system. It is also referred to as choosing a spacetime foliation, or foliating spacetime.

Excellent explanation in your post #2!

bapowell https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2597749&postcount=2"
As a simple analogy, allow a book to represent a 3D spacetime. Then, the 2D pages of the book are your hypersurfaces, and the page numbers define how you go from one to the next: the pages and page numbers make up your foliation.

I looked around for Foliation and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foliation" , but it doesn’t explain it as well as you did.

Could this be considered as a picture of Foliation?

An open surface with X-, Y-, and Z-contours shown.
(Looks like two eyes or a bra... )


Reeb foliation (foliation of the 3-sphere) is illustrated as this:

Looks nice for a 'torus universe'!

 

[qwe]

What Is Beyond The Observable Universe?

the unobservable universe, aka the rest of our universe, aka the galaxies we don't see but are right outside of our sight range so they are next to galaxies we do see

What is beyond the Universe Altogether?

the bulk, because the universe is a brane :P

What is beyond the bulk?

not sure if this question has any meaning yet

 

[Frame Dragger]

What Is Beyond The Observable Universe?

the unobservable universe, aka the rest of our universe, aka the galaxies we don't see but are right outside of our sight range so they are next to galaxies we do see

What is beyond the Universe Altogether?

the bulk, because the universe is a brane :P

What is beyond the bulk?

not sure if this question has any meaning yet

You're assuming that Brane Cosmology, which is highly speculative is a physical reality? that's purely ATM. The question, and your answers cease to be meaningful after "so they are next to galaxies we do see," and even that is deceptively simplified. What is beyond the observable universe?: more of what we see around us, as we're looking at "old" light. That said, if you're talking about those we can't see it's not an LOS issue, it's an issue of recession speeds.

I don't mean this as an insult, but you just killed one thread, please don't kill this one with the same speculation.

 

[pixchips]

pixchips, don’t take this too seriously...

No worries! I started another thread and got some interesting discussion. At some point I have to dig into the math, but at the moment I'd like to get some pictures in my head that are at least consistent with the math.

BTW: the folliation pixes are cool, but make my head spin. I will cogitate and try to grok these.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Okay, cool!

 

[bapowell]

but then some argue that the pre-conditions needed for this inflation to ever occur, is even more 'remarkable' than the resulting smoothness...

Probably not more remarkable, but some argue that the initial conditions for inflation are hard to come by.

Some "personal speculations" to maybe get this into my head:
Could we think of the 'propagation' as some kind of a 'symmetry breaking', in the quantum-fluctuations of the 'primordial soup'...?? Like a "giant infinite lake"... the temperature is getting lower, and lower, and lower, and suddenly the whole lake is frozen, roughly at once...? (= 'symmetry breaking') ...or...??

Not sure what you mean by 'propagation'. But the quantum fluctuations amplified by inflation can certainly be thought of as 'breaking the symmetry' of the classical, smooth geometry. As far as the "giant infinite lake" goes, I think you're just about describing the early understanding of inflation. Guth perceived inflation as a phase transition, much like the kind we read about in thermodynamics. He suggested that as the universe cooled, parts of it were 'trapped' in a higher energy phase -- the universe is said to have undergone supercooling (just like when you lower the temperature of a liquid below its freezing point without it becoming frozen). These higher energy phases (the liquid) are the inflating regions. Finally, the phase transition completes -- the inflating regions decay to lower energy and the standard radiation dominated expansion commences (where does this radiation come from? From the phase transition perspective, it's the latent heat associated with the phase change!) Now you may also know that the scalar field that drives inflation is the order parameter of this phase change, and the shape of its potential can resemble those functions seen in the 1st or 2nd order phase transitions in thermodynamics. The truly exciting part, is that in the early days it was hoped that the inflaton was a GUT Higgs field, responsible for breaking the GUT symmetry. The idea that symmetry breaking in particle physics could manifest itself as a cosmological phase transition is beyond awesome. Unfortunately, today we know that it's unlikely that the inflaton is a GUT Higgs, and it's unclear what its identity is.

 

[George Jones]

Probably not more remarkable, but some argue that the initial conditions for inflation are hard to come by.

A few "radicals" think "More remarkable."

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1355858#post1355858

 

[Flatland]

Re-review what matt.o had to say. I think you are hopelessly deluded. String theory predicts . . . not a damn thing. Feel free to to contradict that assertion with . . . a testable prediction. I love those things.

I never said string theory made any testable predictions. Reread what I said and get a clue. No one would suggest that string theory is anything more than a hypothesis. Who's the deluded one again?

 

[Frame Dragger]

I never said string theory made any testable predictions. Reread what I said and get a clue. No one would suggest that string theory is anything more than a hypothesis. Who's the deluded one again?

You said,

String Theory actually claims to explain what happened before the BB.

If those predictions are not testable, and you don't believe in them... why bring that up as an answer to "what is beyond the observable universe"? I would conclude that by page 5 or 6, other more basic answers had been given, and you don't endorse string theory, but simply offered a fact... string theory DOES in fact, make that claim.

That said, for what I suspect is a simple misread on Chronos' part (something we've all done, probably) your response is rude as HELL. Is this how you want others to respond to your simple mistakes?

 

[qwe]

You're assuming that Brane Cosmology, which is highly speculative is a physical reality? that's purely ATM. The question, and your answers cease to be meaningful after "so they are next to galaxies we do see," and even that is deceptively simplified. What is beyond the observable universe?: more of what we see around us, as we're looking at "old" light. That said, if you're talking about those we can't see it's not an LOS issue, it's an issue of recession speeds.

I don't mean this as an insult, but you just killed one thread, please don't kill this one with the same speculation.

i know brane cosmology is not certain

we pretty much totally agree though. what's beyond the observable universe? more of the same. that's why i said a galaxy happening to be right outside of our visual range, would be close to galaxies we cannot see

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Unfortunately, today we know that it's unlikely that the inflaton is a GUT Higgs, and it's unclear what its identity is.

Thanks bapowell. Sorry for being very late... I was 'ensnared' in an EPR discussion over at QM...

 

[Frame Dragger]

i know brane cosmology is not certain

we pretty much totally agree though. what's beyond the observable universe? more of the same. that's why i said a galaxy happening to be right outside of our visual range, would be close to galaxies we cannot see

That works for me! Don't get me wrong either, I find brane cosmology absolutely fascinating, and if it turns out to be on the right track it would be stunning. Then again, there is a bit of "stacks of turtles" going on there, so who knows. Either way, I take your point, and I think we agree on the physics.

 

[tohamas]

The 'edge' of our observable universe is receeding faster than the speed of light: which means you can't get there from here.

But surely the 'edge' of our universe can't be moving faster than the speed of light, relativity makes that impossible, unless the boundary of our universe is just light, moving outwards. But even so it's impossible for the edge of our universe to be moving faster than the speed of light.

 

[DaveC426913]

But surely the 'edge' of our universe can't be moving faster than the speed of light, relativity makes that impossible, unless the boundary of our universe is just light, moving outwards. But even so it's impossible for the edge of our universe to be moving faster than the speed of light.

Google superluminal recession. Your questions will be answered.

 

[AbsoluteChaos]

I think the answer is "I don't know." The observable universe is limited by our position in the universe and our limited understanding. There may be many universes inside this one, outside our dimension/understanding or this one maybe one of many within the description "universe" or all alone as "Uno-universe". I think the question of what is observable is slightly distracting because the observable universe is quite small by comparison to what is out there and is changing fast.

I think the comparison to the goldfish bowl is helpful in so far as we are the goldfish, the water our universe, the glass the limitation of our understanding and beyond the glass is beyond the observable universe. Maybe there is a little kid looking in wondering why we swim around in circles. Of cause the little kid would be a green alien with tentacles speaking with an Amercian accent.

 

[jackmell]

What do you think?

Critical points. They change things don't they. Do you know what I mean by critical points?

Take dropping the temp of water until it freezes. The critical point is the freezing point and something qualitatively different emerges when that point is reached. Many phenomena in nature are like that: smooth flowing until a critical point is reached and then suddenly something qualitatively different emerges. That's what I think about the Universe. A critical point started it, and if we could see beyond it, we'd reach another critical point which would change qualitatively, our understanding of it.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Of cause the little kid would be a green alien with tentacles speaking with an Amercian accent.

This must be Sarah Palin!?

 

[Unit]

What do you think?

Beyond the observable universe is the not-yet-observed universe.

 

[map19]

jackmell. Wiki phase transitions.
In the early universe just after the BB the phase transitions were essential. for ex. taking the electroweak symmetry and giving us the electromagnetic stuff we have today.
last I heard Weinberg was investigating early transitions. I believe whether they are first order or second order is the question.

 

[map19]

The "observable universe" is a vague term.
There's our Hubble Sphere, which is the distance from Earth that the recession velocity = c.
But red shift, recession, is measured by a factor that is frequency of emitted light divided by frequency of light received here minus 1. It is Z = (f0/fr)-1.
So you would expect light sources receding at c to have a Z of 1. That is; Vr = Zc.
This is not the case due to the general relativistic curvature of space.
Light sources with a recession velocity of c have a Z of about 1.5.
radio telescopes can, and do, receive signals with a Z of about 10.
That is a recession velocity about 4c.
I recommend the Davis and Lineweaver paper to anybody interested in further details.

 

[Jake4]

I swear this is a troll..

If your whole concievable world is a table, thus all that you can and ever will observe is on that table, then why waste your time wondering what's under the table?

That is what he's saying, there's no reason to contemplate its existence because you can't say anything about it, nor will you ever be able to say anything about it, rooted in certainty.


Someone who spends years trying to find out what lies beyond, is no more correct than someone simply saying its a space occupied solely by cotton candy.

And also, "black extending for eternity" isn't nothing, that's a very juvenile way of putting it.

 

[jackmell]

jackmell. Wiki phase transitions.
In the early universe just after the BB the phase transitions were essential. for ex. taking the electroweak symmetry and giving us the electromagnetic stuff we have today.
last I heard Weinberg was investigating early transitions. I believe whether they are first order or second order is the question.

Hello map. Thanks for that reference. The part about the early Universe was interesting. I suspect the onset of a phase-transition WAS the Big Bang and have every confidence we will one day learn what larger phenomenon we are part of and in so doing begin to model the creation of Universes.

 

[crawfs98]

If the universe is infinite, then an infinite number of all possible universes exist, so you are all correct (except those who say nothing exists that cannot be observed - or perhaps even that, the most absurd proposition of all, is infinitely possible too). And somewhere a slightly brighter version of me just came up with a better answer than this too, an infinite number of times.

 

[bapowell]

And somewhere a slightly brighter version of me just came up with a better answer than this too, an infinite number of times.

Aha! But only if there are an infinite number of ways of coming up with a better answer

 

[f24u7]

by observing the extent of observable universe can't we predict structures outside the observable universe by ruling out the gravitational influence inside the observable universe?

 

[Dylan Roberts]

I think it's like in dangermouse with all weird hands and things. ;)

 

[Richard Haber]

When you leave the edge of our universe you will eventaully find another universe in the process of expansion and after that another etc, the result of successive so called "big bangs" proceeding the result of our current one,we just happen to be in the most recent as we ride it out into far space this expansion covers every direction possible. Far far beyond this unmeasurable ripple effect of successive explosions one will find the same effect coming from different locations. Big bangs happen repeatedly and in countless locations and the distaces apart are so great that by the time such forces meet each other they are virtually meaningless.

 

[brother time]

I think that if there was one "big bang" there must be others. I voted blank space until other Universes
BT

 

[shunyadragon]

Is it just black space extending forever? Or perhaps black space for a finite distance until another universe?

I find it hard to believe our universe is just the only universe. I don't see how it wouldn't extend for eternity instead. What is so special about our universe and the space we are in?

What do you think?

I put other, because to conclude either of the other options would make assumptions we at present cannot make. It is not unreasonable to conclude that we are one of many possible universes, based on our present knowledge. One of the concepts of the philosophy of science is the assumption of uniformity of the nature of our physical existence. To hold that our universe is in some way unique or singular would a violation of this concept. It may be possible be true, but so far we have never discovered anything that is unique and singular in our physical existence, and not related to a more universal and greater physical existence.

One problem with the choice of a black void, is we have never observed this as an option and it would not go well with all our present QM knowledge concerning the nature of our physical existence.

 

[DaveC426913]

When you leave the edge of our universe you will eventaully find another universe in the process of expansion and after that another etc, the result of successive so called "big bangs" proceeding the result of our current one,we just happen to be in the most recent as we ride it out into far space this expansion covers every direction possible. Far far beyond this unmeasurable ripple effect of successive explosions one will find the same effect coming from different locations. Big bangs happen repeatedly and in countless locations and the distaces apart are so great that by the time such forces meet each other they are virtually meaningless.

Stop! Please! You're killin' me!

This is worse than wild speculation; it's wild speculation based on ignorance of the facts.

 

[blandrew]

As a layperson allow me to throw in my two-penneth worth.

Where ever you find yourself in the universe, you are both at its centre and at its edge.

Looking in any direction from any point in the universe is merely an observation into the history of the universe.

Einsteins equations tell us that it would take infinite energy to accelerate mass beyond c, so your kinda stuck with the first two statements.

"What is beyond the observable universe?" ...tomorrow is.

 

[nismaratwork]

As a layperson allow me to throw in my two-penneth worth.

Where ever you find yourself in the universe, you are both at its centre and at its edge.

Looking in any direction from any point in the universe is merely an observation into the history of the universe.

Einsteins equations tell us that it would take infinite energy to accelerate mass beyond c, so your kinda stuck with the first two statements.

"What is beyond the observable universe?" ...tomorrow is.

That is without meaning. This is Cosmology, not religion.

 

[blandrew]

As a layperson allow me to throw in my two-penneth worth.

Where ever you find yourself in the universe, you are both at its centre and at its edge.

Looking in any direction from any point in the universe is merely an observation into the history of the universe.

Einsteins equations tell us that it would take infinite energy to accelerate mass beyond c, so your kinda stuck with the first two statements.

"What is beyond the observable universe?" ...tomorrow is.

That is without meaning. This is Cosmology, not religion.

Being unable to understand something does not equate to it being without meaning.

My observations are based on science and logic, not theology.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is without meaning. This is Cosmology, not religion.

I'm afraid I don't follow either. blandrew's comments are more in line with our current understanding of cosmology than anyone else's in this thread.

Not sure if you've noticed, but this thread is otherwise full of people thinking the universe is a sphere - of which we happen to be at the centre and, flying to the "edge", we could lay down traffic cones. Then fly past that and look around to see other Big Bangs off in the distance. This is just a complete lack of understanding of cosmology.

 

[brother time]

We are not in the center! And it is more odd shaped, the expansion is not at a constant linear rate for all parts of it.Thanks Dave, BT

 

[blandrew]

Where ever you find yourself in the universe, you are both at its centre and at its edge.

Looking in any direction from any point in the universe is merely an observation into the history of the universe.

Einsteins equations tell us that it would take infinite energy to accelerate mass beyond c, so your kinda stuck with the first two statements.

"What is beyond the observable universe?" ...tomorrow is.

We are not in the center! And it is more odd shaped, the expansion is not at a constant linear rate for all parts of it.

Where ever you are in the universe, everything else is expanding away from you. So your always at the centre in that regard.

Suggesting that the universe has any shape at all is to suggest that the universe is expanding into some other space.

 

[bapowell]

We are not in the center! And it is more odd shaped, the expansion is not at a constant linear rate for all parts of it.

To the best of our knowledge, the expansion of the universe is isotropic about the Earth's position.

Suggesting that the universe has any shape at all is to suggest that the universe is expanding into some other space.

This is not so. The universe could be expanding anisotropically -- faster in one direction than another. Additionally, the universe could have some exotic shape to it -- like a donut or a sphere. The notion that such a universe would need a higher dimensional space within which to exist is false -- the geometry and topology of the universe are intrinsic properties of the (3+1)-dim surface, and do not require an embedding into a higher dimension space to be realized.

 

[blandrew]

To the best of our knowledge, the expansion of the universe is isotropic about the Earth's position.


This is not so. The universe could be expanding anisotropically -- faster in one direction than another. Additionally, the universe could have some exotic shape to it -- like a donut or a sphere. The notion that such a universe would need a higher dimensional space within which to exist is false -- the geometry and topology of the universe are intrinsic properties of the (3+1)-dim surface, and do not require an embedding into a higher dimension space to be realized.

I believe there is stronger consensus for a "flat" infinite universe.

 

[bapowell]

I believe there is stronger consensus for a "flat" infinite universe.

Of course, current observations show the local geometry of the universe to be flat to within a few percent. This observation is not inconsistent with a closed universe (spherical geometry), just that such a closed universe would need to be sufficiently large to look locally flat (like the Earth to us humans). Also, a torus is geometrically flat -- it is topologically nontrivial. There is no 'consensus' regarding whether the universe is infinite or finite. Current cosmological observations have nothing to say (yet) about the global properties of the universe.

 

[blandrew]

Of course, current observations show the local geometry of the universe to be flat to within a few percent. This observation is not inconsistent with a closed universe (spherical geometry), just that such a closed universe would need to be sufficiently large to look locally flat (like the Earth to us humans). Also, a torus is geometrically flat -- it is topologically nontrivial. There is no 'consensus' regarding whether the universe is infinite or finite. Current cosmological observations have nothing to say (yet) about the global properties of the universe.

"global properties"? Unfortunate use of language :)

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm afraid I don't follow either. blandrew's comments are more in line with our current understanding of cosmology than anyone else's in this thread.

Not sure if you've noticed, but this thread is otherwise full of people thinking the universe is a sphere - of which we happen to be at the centre and, flying to the "edge", we could lay down traffic cones. Then fly past that and look around to see other Big Bangs off in the distance. This is just a complete lack of understanding of cosmology.

That may be, but the universe has a definite geometry, and we are somewhere within that. We cannot be at its edge and center simultaneously. There are better ways to describe a bounded universe and our observations of old light, than with borderline poetry. That the universe may be embedded in a membrane, or conform to the holographic principle, or a number of other options doesn't support such a fanciful description.

Speculating as to the geometry of our observable region is one thing, but conjecture as to its overall topology is part of the problem with M-Theory; it is probably not falsifiable or provable. That's not science, it's fancy.

 

[blandrew]

Where ever you find yourself in the universe, you are both at its centre and at its edge.

Looking in any direction from any point in the universe is merely an observation into the history of the universe.

Einsteins equations tell us that it would take infinite energy to accelerate mass beyond c, so your kinda stuck with the first two statements.

"What is beyond the observable universe?" ...tomorrow is.

That may be, but the universe has a definite geometry, and we are somewhere within that. We cannot be at its edge and center simultaneously. There are better ways to describe a bounded universe and our observations of old light, than with borderline poetry. That the universe may be embedded in a membrane, or conform to the holographic principle, or a number of other options doesn't support such a fanciful description.

Speculating as to the geometry of our observable region is one thing, but conjecture as to its overall topology is part of the problem with M-Theory; it is probably not falsifiable or provable. That's not science, it's fancy.

Thank you for describing my comments as poetry.

In a homogeneous and isotropic universe it could be said that, where ever you find yourself within it, your at it's centre.

Perhaps there is an assumption here that the universe is infinite and that Einsteins STR holds true.

Being at its edge and finding tomorrow beyond the observable is more cheeky i'll grant. But the universe has 4 dimensions (i'm sure someone will tell us it has more) and we live in its present, observe its past and wait for its future. So in that regard, we're at the edge.