What Is Beyond The Observable Universe?

[Silverbackman]

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?

 

[Chronos]

By logical necessity, there is literally 'nothing' beyond the observable universe. It is impossible to apply falsifiable predictions to something that is inherently unobservable.

 

[Silverbackman]

By logical necessity, there is literally 'nothing' beyond the observable universe. It is impossible to apply falsifiable predictions to something that is inherently unobservable.

In other words it is more in the realms of philosophy right now. But don't you think in the future we may be able to see beyond what is now considered the observable universe and find other universes? What do you think?

It just doesn't make any sense how this universe could be the only one. I always thought of the universe/multiverse/omniverse as infinite.

If there is 'nothing' outside the observable universe it would be just black space for eternity, right? Unless the universe is round (which all current evidence points to it being flat) then you can't arrive back in the universe in the other side. Plus most likelly space, like "time" is infinite.

 

[mathman]

According to the inflation model, the universe is much bigger than the observable universe. On the other hand, the total universe is is still finite, but there is no such thing as outside. The simplest analogy is what is outside the surface of a sphere (ingnoring the third dimension).

 

[Silverbackman]

But most evidence points to the universe being flat. In that case a what would happen if you reach the end of the universe? If it were a spherical universe then we would just reach the other side. But what would happen if you reach the end of the universe? Would their be like a giant hard barrier that you can hit but not explode? Sounds to mythical to me. The universe seems to complex for it to be just finite.

The universe isn't infinitely big and infinitely small?

 

[Chronos]

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

 

[Silverbackman]

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

Well yea of course we can't really see it. However is that proof there is nothing beyond there? What proof is there that 'nothing' exists at the edge of the observable universe? We just can't see it from our place in the cosmos. Perhaps if we were on another planet across the universe we may be able to observe more into what we cannot currently see, right?

 

[kant]

By logical necessity, there is literally 'nothing' beyond the observable universe. It is impossible to apply falsifiable predictions to something that is inherently unobservable.

What do you mean by "logical necessity"?

I think there is something that cannot be explain 'outside' space-time of own universe, but that is a different assertion of "nothing"?

 

[Chronos]

Let's focus on the definition of a 'universe'. It necessarily includes all things possible to observe. This allows the possibility we have not yet observed all things possible to observe. In that sense, anything that is truly external to our observable universe is literally 'nothing'. It is, and will forever be undefinable.

 

[Silverbackman]

Our guess the space and time in our universe is finite. However it is just hard to believe there was no time before the big bang and no content beyond our observable universe. It doesn't make sense how things can by finite. I mean what happened before the big bang and why are there boundaries at the ends of our universe?

By studying the universe and the physical world one can truly see things aren't orderly per se. They far beyond the realms of organized imagination and can only be understood with observation and empiricism. Limits on the universe would truly make things beyond confusing.

BTW, what do scientists think happened before the big bang. Since the universe is expanding according to most of the evidence today, the cyclical big crunch is unlikely. What do scientists think are the likely choices?

 

[kant]

Let's focus on the definition of a 'universe'. It necessarily includes all things possible to observe. This allows the possibility we have not yet observed all things possible to observe. In that sense, anything that is truly external to our observable universe is literally 'nothing'. It is, and will forever be undefinable.

You define 'everything' to be the observable universe( U ), and anything that is not U is nothing. Am i talking to a robot, or am i talking to a human being?

 

[Chronos]

Just dealing with the logical inconsistencies. 'U' includes the set of events possible to observe in this universe. 'Not U' includes the set of events impossible to observe. 'Not U', hence, is not causal in the chain of events that occur in this universe. 'Not U', therefore, is irrelevant [i.e., does not exist].

 

[kant]

Just dealing with the logical inconsistencies. 'U' includes the set of events possible to observe in this universe. 'Not U' includes the set of events impossible to observe. 'Not U' has no effect on the causal chain of events that occur in this universe. 'Not U' is therefore meaningless [i.e., does not exist].

So if an 'event' occur outside of our spacetime; its effect is incapabe of reaching us. In your opinion, it does not exist?

Why should existence need an observer?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So if an 'event' occur outside of our spacetime; its effect is incapabe of reaching us. In your opinion, it does not exist?

Why should existence need an observer?

Listen to yourself! Do events we can never know about exist or not? How the hell can you or I or anyone ever know? It's just a fantasy!

 

[kant]

Listen to yourself! Do events we can never know about exist or not? How the hell can you or I or anyone ever know? It's just a fantasy!

What is your point? Your last three sentence seems to be in agreement with me.

 

[SpaceTiger]

But most evidence points to the universe being flat. In that case a what would happen if you reach the end of the universe?

The generic flat universe (with a trivial topology) is actually infinite in extent. Other topologies allow for a finite universe, in which one could (in theory) loop around it, given enough time.

 

[SpaceTiger]

...why are there boundaries at the ends of our universe?

The only boundaries are those set by the finite age of the universe (also known as "horizons"). For example, the "particle horizon" is the distance of the largest object whose light could have reached us since the beginning of time.

what do scientists think happened before the big bang. Since the universe is expanding according to most of the evidence today, the cyclical big crunch is unlikely. What do scientists think are the likely choices?

In the standard cosmological model, there is no "before" the Big Bang. Realistically, though, we can't say much of anything about the universe pre-inflation, so the best answer is that we don't know.

 

[heliocentricprose]

I believe that more stars, black holes, and galaxies lie beyond the observable universe. These unseen do not effect us because of the cosmic expansion. However, (I think this has been said before) I like to think of the observable as a line of sight. You can't see it over the horizon, yet you know China exists. Outside that 'sphere' of the universe, I believe, out of pure guesswork and fantasy (of course), that the other dimensions of the universe, come into play... this is the point where I start confusing myself and start watching Spongebob Square Pants. :) Good day.

 

[hejs]

If we travel infinitely far into the microcosmos then we will meet the astronaut who travel infinitely far out to the macrocosmos. Sound good at least :)

 

[Tojen]

Isn't space created by matter? If that's the case, there should be nothing past the boundaries of the Universe, at least nothing we can perceive or relate to in any way.

 

[kmarinas86]

Isn't space created by matter? If that's the case, there should be nothing past the boundaries of the Universe, at least nothing we can perceive or relate to in any way.

No, the majority of physicists think it is created by "dark energy", but its not really the creation of space, it's the expansion of it.

 

[kant]

So, i guess the robot is giving me the silent treatment.

 

[Tojen]

No, the majority of physicists think it is created by "dark energy", but its not really the creation of space, it's the expansion of it.

kmarinas86,

What I meant to say was that you can't have space without matter, and vice versa. At least that's my uneducated take on it. I didn't know dark energy was considered to be the cause of space, or its expansion. I learned something already. Thanks.

 

[matt.o]

dark energy is not the cause of space, nor is it the cause of the expansion of space. Dark energy is thought to cause the acceleration of the expansion of space.

 

[roland]

Beyond the observable universe is the unobserved universe that we have yet to see. It simply goes on forever. If it is not infinite, where does it end? Think about it. It cannot possibly end.

 

[Chronos]

Beyond the observable universe is irrelevant. It has no consequences in our observable universe. This is a philosophical, not scientific issue.

 

[roland]

Hi Chronos. Yes you are right. However I do feel that this is a very negative answer to the original question.

 

[Chronos]

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

 

[Silverbackman]

Chronos you do have a point. However just because this question overlaps a bit with philosophy it doesn't mean it is totally not science. We have no observable evidence that aliens exist, but nearly all scientists know even without observation that there has to be other life in the galaxy (or at least the universe).

So what would happen if you were to go theoretically in a spaceship beyond the observable universe? If space is more than empty space and you do keep going in black space, then I assume there definitely is something beyond this observable universe. I assume there maybe other universes perhaps billions of "light years" away.

I mean what else can explain the ends of the universe? It wouldn't make much sense to bump into a barrier would it? We see the ends of the universe as just black space, correct? There is no proof it is nothing more than just black space.

 

[Silverbackman]

The only boundaries are those set by the finite age of the universe (also known as "horizons"). For example, the "particle horizon" is the distance of the largest object whose light could have reached us since the beginning of time.




In the standard cosmological model, there is no "before" the Big Bang. Realistically, though, we can't say much of anything about the universe pre-inflation, so the best answer is that we don't know.

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

 

[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)