[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 177 KB, 1024x512, 216398main_fullsky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1726024 No.1726024 [Reply] [Original]

Is there an edge to the universe, /sci/ ?
If space is expanding, then there must be a finite amount of space, currently. What would the edge be like?
What would happen to light once it reaches it?

>> No.1726058

the closest you got to an edge to the universe is the heisenberg limit, which is right in front of you!

>> No.1726077
File: 46 KB, 380x380, 1272584920736.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1726077

We can only see in about 13.9 billion light years in any direction for that is the time the universe actually existed in a visible state.

Estimates for the size of the unobservable universe could be anywhere from 93 billion ly to the observable universe in comparison to the unobservable universe how a atom is to the observable universe.

>> No.1726086
File: 25 KB, 320x297, geometry_of_universe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1726086

>>1726024
The universe goes on forever because it has just the right amount of mass. Even if it didn't, there would be no edge for the same reason you can't walk off the edge of the Earth.

>> No.1726091

>>1726077
what makes us think that there is more than what we see?

no troll

>> No.1726099

>>1726077

just to note on what they said,the edge of the observable universe at 46blys away is the comoving distance,this is how far the things we can see are away from us currently,

but the bubble of light is 13.9 blys,everything we see must have been inside this bubble at one point in the past,even though it is now at a further distance

>> No.1726109
File: 117 KB, 400x400, 1281870869479.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1726109

>>1726091
I dunno, probably some complex as shit mathematics.
Can't know until we get some wormhole or Alcubierre drive to go to some far off galaxy near the limits of our vision and to see what is beyond our horizon.
If the aforementioned technology gets invented then there is a good chance that every person could get a habitable oxygen/nitrogen/water planet just for themselves. Simply from the vast number of expected planets even within just our observable universe.

>> No.1726113
File: 10 KB, 429x410, 1272502660133.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1726113

>>1726099
>the edge of the observable universe at 46blys away

>> No.1726114

>>1726086
>it goes on forever because it has just the right mass
>imperfect reasoning

>> No.1726122

>>1726086

This pretty much answers my question.
Is that a 3d representation of a folding on greater dimensions or is 3 dimensional space believed to be folded like that?

>> No.1726130

it's probably like sphere,which has no edge

>> No.1726139

>>1726113
what?

>> No.1726147

Cool mind fuck: The actual size of the universe can be SMALLER than the visible universe.

>> No.1726152

>>1726130
It is probably like a 4-dimensional hypersphere where the dimension we experience as time is "distance from the center" (radius)

>> No.1726161

>>1726147
is this the closed and bounded hypothesis,seeing the back of our heads thing?

>> No.1726171

>>1726161
Yes.

>> No.1726180

>>1726171

first time i actually got to grips with that shit my head exploded slightly,truely a mindfuck

>> No.1726191

i heard some guy in a wheelchair say that spacetime is curved in on itself by gravity so if you go to the edge of the universe youd probably come out the other end.

>> No.1726197
File: 154 KB, 395x500, 1283620224100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1726197

so many idoits.

>> No.1726201

>>1726147

How much smaller?

>> No.1726221

>>1726201
About 15 billion ly.

>> No.1726234

This video is relevant, but it's an hour long.

Also, Richard Dawkins for the first two minutes, and I know how /sci/ worships him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>> No.1726242

>>1726234
>Also, Richard Dawkins for the first two minutes, and I know how /sci/ worships him.
OMG DID YOU SEE WHAT AN ARROGANT AND ASSOLERY INTRODUCTION HE GAVE?
WHAT A DICK!

>> No.1726243

>>1726147
Although observations indicate this is not the case.

>> No.1726252

There is no edge...it is infinite. 15 Billion? Haha. Such ignorance in here.

>> No.1726262

>>1726252

did not read the posts,stuck finger up arse instead

>> No.1726281

>>1726152
If time were the radial dimension of the hypersphere the expansion of the universe qould always be linear with time, which it has not. It would also make time a spatial dimension, which it is not. The radial dimension of the hypersphere is just a useful construct in understanding the three spatial dimensions of the universe. The forth spatial dimension is not actually part of our universe.

>> No.1726293

Guys, is the multiverse possible?

>> No.1726294

OP, there is an edge to the observable universe, because it is just a sphere extending out about 46 billion years. The edge to the observable universe is simply an event horizon, as at that point space expands away from us faster than the speed of light.

There is no edge to the entire universe, even assuming it is finite, In that case it has a boundless finite topology, like a 3-sphere.

>> No.1726302

>>1726281

it doesn't have be an exact hypersphere, there can be distortions.

>> No.1726308

It's currently impossible to answer this question; there's an edge to the observable universe, if that helps. The edge of this is just like right here, only super far away. Light acts exactly the same there.

I know that's not a fulfilling answer, but it's about as far as you can go without speculation.