Where Does Space End? It Must End Somewhere!

[36grit]

I have to agree the person who said that a black hole is the edge of space time. And if there is a singularity at the core it may well be the begining as well.

[SamBridge]

There is no "edge" to space time, not that astronomers have found.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

matter cannot always be divided into smaller protions. do the words "elementary particles" mean anything to you?

 

The smallest known not dividable energy for current physics is E=h (if the smallest frequency is 1 Hz), anything above it is multiplied by h.

f.e. light 550 nm

E = h * c / 550 nm = h * 545077196363636

 

Matter like proton and electron is not quite elementary- you can collide it with it's antiparticle and cause annihilation and production from it photons.

If photons have too high frequency you can use beam splitter and again receive smaller pieces.

 

But so far nobody knows how to split photon with the smallest frequency AFAIK.

[swansont]

The smallest known not dividable energy for current physics is E=h (if the smallest frequency is 1 Hz), anything above it is multiplied by h.

f.e. light 550 nm

E = h * c / 550 nm = h * 545077196363636

 

Matter like proton and electron is not quite elementary- you can collide it with it's antiparticle and cause annihilation and production from it photons.

If photons have too high frequency you can use beam splitter and again receive smaller pieces.

 

But so far nobody knows how to split photon with the smallest frequency AFAIK.

 

!

Moderator Note

There is no smallest (nonzero) frequency, and this is a discussion that you have in your thread(s) in speculations. Do not bring up speculations in mainstream threads.

[Christopher Nance]

The universe is like this forum thread. It
grows as fast as people post and the concepts run in circles. When you
near the conclusion of topic, something happens and the topic returns to
where it began and repeats the cycle.

 

Though alot
of times we disregard religion in the fields of science, we are really
living in a remarkable time were alot of science is starting to sync up
with some of the preachings in old (albiet heretic) forms of
Christianity refered to as Gnosticism. The Nag Hammadi's Gospel of
Thomas it is said that to understand yourself is to understand all
things in the [universe]. I think that this topic kind of goes along
with that, or atleast walks that same tight-rope of reasoning.

 

I
feel that some things aren't ment to be understood. To cross over that
threshold (if possible) would be to compromise exsistence itself. But I
swear if it isn't fun trying and that is, afterall, our purpose.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Christopher Nance

[Phi for All]

The universe is like this forum thread. It

grows as fast as people post and the concepts run in circles. When you

near the conclusion of topic, something happens and the topic returns to

where it began and repeats the cycle.

 

Though alot

of times we disregard religion in the fields of science, we are really

living in a remarkable time were alot of science is starting to sync up

with some of the preachings in old (albiet heretic) forms of

Christianity refered to as Gnosticism. The Nag Hammadi's Gospel of

Thomas it is said that to understand yourself is to understand all

things in the [universe]. I think that this topic kind of goes along

with that, or atleast walks that same tight-rope of reasoning.

 

I

feel that some things aren't ment to be understood. To cross over that

threshold (if possible) would be to compromise exsistence itself. But I

swear if it isn't fun trying and that is, afterall, our purpose.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please do NOT introduce religion into a mainstream science thread. This is off-topic, thread hijacking and is against the rules you agreed to when you joined. We have sections for religion and philosophy, please feel free to start your own threads there. Let's keep science discussions focused on science.

 

Don't take this personally, and don't respond to this modnote in this thread. Use the Report Post function if you wish to object or comment on this post.

[needmoreknowledge]

The universe does end but since the universe is always expanding the end keeps going. an object at rest or moving forward will not start or stop unless an unbalance force acts upon it and the universe its self has no unbalanced force acting on it so it doesn't stop.

The universe does end but since the universe is always expanding the end keeps going. an object at rest or moving forward will not start or stop unless an unbalance force acts upon it and the universe its self has no unbalanced force acting on it so it doesn't stop.

newton 1st law of motion

Edited March 19, 2013 by needmoreknowledge

[CarbonCopy]

Its like asking where the Earth ends. It doesn't have an edge, yet we know it is not infinite. It is curled back on itself. According to most astronomers this is what the universe is like, a spherical object.

[JustCurious?!]

But isn't the universe a spherical object only in imaginary time? Excuse me if I am completely wrong, but in real time I thought the universe has the big bang singularity so must have a beginning and the question was whether it would expand forever or collapse to a big crunch?

 

One question regarding the universe being a spherical object in imaginary time...so space is finite but has no boundary/edge so has no beginning or end. If one pole of the spherical object is the big bang and the other pole is the big crunch, let's say the "north pole" being the big bang and the "south pole" big the big crunch, then if the universe gets to the state of being in the big crunch, would the polarities switch so the "south pole" becomes the "north pole"? In other words, is the big crunch interchangeable as the big bang in imaginary time?

 

Adding to this thought: So time is a stretched to infinity at the singularity in a black hole/big bang, and time is faster when an observer is a greater distance (ie airplane vs earth surface analogy). I read that the farther galaxies are moving at faster away from us...not to think that we are the center of the universe but can we extrapolate that to mean that the farthest edges of the universe is moving faster than the part of the universe that is closer to the "epicenter"? So then does that mean that time is moving on to infinity at the edge of the universe just as it is infinity at the center of big bang?

 

So....what does that mean?! So confused! Is the universe one giant wormhole or something?

Edited March 20, 2013 by JustCurious?!

[Yash]

one of the famous theories(and controvesial too) says that the space is the same from where ever you look. So probably it has edges, but because edges look like another point INSIDE the universe, we can't explain where they are

[SplitInfinity]

There is no "edge" to space time, not that astronomers have found.

 

At a distance of 13.4 Billion Light Years is the WMAP...a wall of Microwave Radiation that is just 379,000 light years from the Big Bang. Beyond the WMAP is a sea of super heated plasma which impedes lights progress. Thus we can see to the very edge of our Universe as our Universe appears to be FINITE. It also appears to be flat in it's shape as well as one can go to the NASA website that allows a person to see a 3-D mapping of all the Galaxies in our Universe and when you look at this you can see how Galaxies are distributed throughout our Universe in filaments that give us a picture of the supposed distrabution of Dark Matter.

 

Our Universal Reality is Finite...but a Multiversal System would be INFINITE.

 

Split Infinity

[imatfaal]

At a distance of 13.4 Billion Light Years is the WMAP

WMAP is the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe which is definitely not 13.4 billion light years distant. You mean the CMBR - or Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation I presume. Although even the CMBR is not the distance you gave - however it is 13.4 billion years old (note years not light years)

 

...a wall of Microwave Radiation that is just 379,000 light years from the Big Bang.

The CMBR is everywhere - we see it in every direction, and as we see it here it means necessarily that the photons of the CMB are here!

 

Beyond the WMAP is a sea of super heated plasma which impedes lights progress.

Before (time) not really beyond (distance) Yes the CMBR was produced around the era of last scattering; the poetic name for time when the universe stopped being an opaque plasma and cooled enough for combination of electrons and protons into neutral atoms - and the last light produced by the plasma was not absorbed and 13ish Glyr later we see those exact same photons, massively red-shifted, as the microwave background.

 

Thus we can see to the very edge of our Universe as our Universe appears to be FINITE.

No. We can see bits of the universe 40 odd Glyrs away that are 13.4ish Gyrs old - but that is merely the edge of the observable universe, there is no claim that this is the edge of the actual universe

It also appears to be flat in it's shape as well

The WMAP does suggest that it is flat - measuring huge cosmic triangles and seeing if the angles add up to 180 degrees. The Planck telescope is doing an even more detailed survey of the cmbr - and we might see some (small) curvature there.

 

as one can go to the NASA website that allows a person to see a 3-D mapping of all the Galaxies in our Universe and when you look at this you can see how Galaxies are distributed throughout our Universe in filaments that give us a picture of the supposed distrabution of Dark Matter.

There are certainly large and very large scale distributions of matter within the observable universe - these seem to match up with the anisotropies in the CMB which in turn would fit with quantum fluctuations in the very early universe; although this is all very nebulous and hypothetical at present.

 

Our Universal Reality is Finite...but a Multiversal System would be INFINITE.

 

Split Infinity

 

We definitely don't know the first one for certain - and the second part is pure speculation

[SplitInfinity]

WMAP is the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe which is definitely not 13.4 billion light years distant. You mean the CMBR - or Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation I presume. Although even the CMBR is not the distance you gave - however it is 13.4 billion years old (note years not light years)

 

The CMBR is everywhere - we see it in every direction, and as we see it here it means necessarily that the photons of the CMB are here!

 

Before (time) not really beyond (distance) Yes the CMBR was produced around the era of last scattering; the poetic name for time when the universe stopped being an opaque plasma and cooled enough for combination of electrons and protons into neutral atoms - and the last light produced by the plasma was not absorbed and 13ish Glyr later we see those exact same photons, massively red-shifted, as the microwave background.

 

No. We can see bits of the universe 40 odd Glyrs away that are 13.4ish Gyrs old - but that is merely the edge of the observable universe, there is no claim that this is the edge of the actual universe

The WMAP does suggest that it is flat - measuring huge cosmic triangles and seeing if the angles add up to 180 degrees. The Planck telescope is doing an even more detailed survey of the cmbr - and we might see some (small) curvature there.

 

There are certainly large and very large scale distributions of matter within the observable universe - these seem to match up with the anisotropies in the CMB which in turn would fit with quantum fluctuations in the very early universe; although this is all very nebulous and hypothetical at present.

 

 

We definitely don't know the first one for certain - and the second part is pure speculation

 

OK...I had a few in me when I posted this as you are right...WMAP is the probe but I was correct as far as the distance to the begining of the Ocean of Superheated plasma which is 13.4 Billion Light Years. In this case AGE and DISTANCE are the same.

 

The inner sphere of Background Radiation starts at a mere 450 Light Years distant and it's edge is at 13.4 Billion light years distant.

 

As far as our Universe being FINITE...since the observable Background Radiation and the Ocean of Superheated Plasma beyond it...would represent the very beginning of Space/Time in our Universe...as well as measured Gravitational Effect not showing us any evidence of Matter or Space/Time beyond this point....it is HIGHLY unlikely our Universe extends beyonds this.

 

Your right in that this is speculation...but it is calculated speculation based on a High Probability.

 

Split Infinity

[imatfaal]

OK...I had a few in me when I posted this as you are right...WMAP is the probe but I was correct as far as the distance to the begining of the Ocean of Superheated plasma which is 13.4 Billion Light Years. In this case AGE and DISTANCE are the same.

Untrue. The age is 13 and a bit billion years - the distance is definitely not. CMB that we register in our telescopes today has been travelling for about 300kyrs less than the age of the universe. The part of the universe that emitted the CMB we see today on earth is now about 46 Glyr (billion light years) distant. It is this expansion of the space as the light has been travelling that has caused the red-shift from hot hydrogen lines in hard ultraviolet to microwave.

 

The inner sphere of Background Radiation starts at a mere 450 Light Years distant and it's edge is at 13.4 Billion light years distant.

CMB is everywhere! It cannot be 450lyr distant cos we pick it up here - we can only detect radiation that impinges on our detecting equipment - about 1% of the noise you get with an untuned TV is the CMB.

 

As far as our Universe being FINITE...since the observable Background Radiation and the Ocean of Superheated Plasma beyond it...would represent the very beginning of Space/Time in our Universe...as well as measured Gravitational Effect not showing us any evidence of Matter or Space/Time beyond this point....it is HIGHLY unlikely our Universe extends beyonds this.

There is no evidence that the observable universe is the entire universe - and philosophically that would be horrid because we would end up with an anthropocentric universe and we have grown out of that fetish.

 

Your right in that this is speculation...but it is calculated speculation based on a High Probability.

 

Split Infinity

 

No - it is the totally unprovable (at present) result of a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. The very reason we still have competing interpretations is that there is absolutely no experimental way of telling if one is better than the other

[fertilizerspike]

"Hubble telescope is actually theoretically capable of seeing a very bright light source even farther out, for instance 30 billion LYs. Unfortunately there hasn't been enough time for that light to reach us; it will only have travelled half the necessary distance (ignoring, if you don't mind, universe expansion)."

 

We have yet to find such a boundary as you suggest beyond which we simply can not see. We should expect to find one if "big bang" (an idea invented by a belgian priest) is correct.

[SplitInfinity]

Untrue. The age is 13 and a bit billion years - the distance is definitely not. CMB that we register in our telescopes today has been travelling for about 300kyrs less than the age of the universe. The part of the universe that emitted the CMB we see today on earth is now about 46 Glyr (billion light years) distant. It is this expansion of the space as the light has been travelling that has caused the red-shift from hot hydrogen lines in hard ultraviolet to microwave.

 

CMB is everywhere! It cannot be 450lyr distant cos we pick it up here - we can only detect radiation that impinges on our detecting equipment - about 1% of the noise you get with an untuned TV is the CMB.

 

There is no evidence that the observable universe is the entire universe - and philosophically that would be horrid because we would end up with an anthropocentric universe and we have grown out of that fetish.

 

 

No - it is the totally unprovable (at present) result of a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. The very reason we still have competing interpretations is that there is absolutely no experimental way of telling if one is better than the other

 

I was not talking about the current distance of the edge of the CMB...I was talking about the distance of the VISABLE observation by Hubble...which is at 13.4 Billion Light Years.

 

Also...anyway you want to slice it...if we are looking at light 13.4 Billion light years away...we are looking 13.4 Billion years in the past.

 

Looking at the 3 degree Kelvin Background Radiation map...450 Million Light Years is the OUTER Radius...I made a mistake there....here is the link...http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

 

As far as whether our Universal Reality is but one of infinite numbers in a Multiversal System...true there is no current proof....but what there is...a very good line of logic based upon what it can't be.

 

Split Infinity

[imatfaal]

I was not talking about the current distance of the edge of the CMB...I was talking about the distance of the VISABLE observation by Hubble...which is at 13.4 Billion Light Years.

There is no edge to the CMB - that's why its the background, it is everywhere and coming from every direction.

 

Also...anyway you want to slice it...if we are looking at light 13.4 Billion light years away...we are looking 13.4 Billion years in the past.

 

You are neglecting expansion of the universe. Light which has been travelling for 13.4 billion years is now way over 13.4 billion light years from original source. try reading the 3rd and 4th paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

 

 

 

Looking at the 3 degree Kelvin Background Radiation map...450 Million Light Years is the OUTER Radius...I made a mistake there....here is the link...http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

 

You are mis-reading that article - what is says roughly is that at smallscale the universe is not homogeneous, it then provides a picture which shows it is not homogeneous (the part of the universe shown on that picture is max 450MLyr)

 

 

Second, the present Universe is homogenous and isotropic, but only on very large scales. For scales the size of superclusters and smaller the luminous matter in the universe is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the following figure.

 

FIGURE: Data from the survey of galaxies. The voids and "walls" that form the large-scale structure are mapped here by 11,000 galaxies. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is at the center. The outer radius is at a distance of approximately 450 million light-year

 

As far as whether our Universal Reality is but one of infinite numbers in a Multiversal System...true there is no current proof....but what there is...a very good line of logic based upon what it can't be.

 

Split Infinity

 

Logic about what the universe must be or can't be - hey with that and a dollar you can get a ride on the subway

[SplitInfinity]

There is no edge to the CMB - that's why its the background, it is everywhere and coming from every direction.

 

 

You are neglecting expansion of the universe. Light which has been travelling for 13.4 billion years is now way over 13.4 billion light years from original source. try reading the 3rd and 4th paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

 

 

 

 

You are mis-reading that article - what is says roughly is that at smallscale the universe is not homogeneous, it then provides a picture which shows it is not homogeneous (the part of the universe shown on that picture is max 450MLyr)

 

You are not getting the association I was trying to make as far as the previous questions and statements. I am well aware that the CBM is everywhere...however there are...and if you read the link you will know...Labeled INNER and OUTER points specific to detailing Universal Expansion and observable details specific to it. I am well aware of Universal Expansion via the given term Dark Energy.

Logic about what the universe must be or can't be - hey with that and a dollar you can get a ride on the subway

 

This statement is true...LOL!

 

Split Infinity...p.s....THAT is why I drive!

[imatfaal]

You are not getting the association I was trying to make as far as the previous questions and statements. I am well aware that the CBM is everywhere...however there are...and if you read the link you will know...Labeled INNER and OUTER points specific to detailing Universal Expansion and observable details specific to it. I am well aware of Universal Expansion via the given term Dark Energy.

This is not caused by the accelerated expansion of dark energy - this is the well proven and understood metric expansion that is the logical consequence of the big bang. we knew about this way before saul perlmutter and his buddies threw a spanner in the works by noticing the expansion was accelerating - this is all rooted in the big bang theory, hubble constant, etc

 

This statement is true...LOL!

 

Split Infinity...p.s....THAT is why I drive!

[SplitInfinity]

This is not caused by the accelerated expansion of dark energy - this is the well proven and understood metric expansion that is the logical consequence of the big bang. we knew about this way before saul perlmutter and his buddies threw a spanner in the works by noticing the expansion was accelerating - this is all rooted in the big bang theory, hubble constant, etc

 

I was refering to Dark Energy as it pertained to you bringing up Universal Expansion. I am aware CBR is due to the Big Bang.

 

Split Infinity

[imatfaal]

I was refering to Dark Energy as it pertained to you bringing up Universal Expansion. I am aware CBR is due to the Big Bang.

 

Split Infinity

 

yes - I realise. Dark Energy only causes a tiny acceleration to universal expansion which is almost entirely due to the big bang. the universe was expanding since the big bang this is hubble's work from early in the 20th century - until 15 years ago we expected it would slow down and might start to fall back in, but then saul perlmutter, brain schmidt and adam reiss showed that it was not slowing down it was accelerating. The universal expansion that we were talk about has practically zero to do with dark energy - it was known about decades before we even realised that we might need to postulate dark energy.

[SplitInfinity]

yes - I realise. Dark Energy only causes a tiny acceleration to universal expansion which is almost entirely due to the big bang. the universe was expanding since the big bang this is hubble's work from early in the 20th century - until 15 years ago we expected it would slow down and might start to fall back in, but then saul perlmutter, brain schmidt and adam reiss showed that it was not slowing down it was accelerating. The universal expansion that we were talk about has practically zero to do with dark energy - it was known about decades before we even realised that we might need to postulate dark energy.

 

Well...whatever is causing acceleration must be specific to an EFFECT not a Force.

 

If you state that the Big Bang is causing the majority of this...I think you would be hard pressed to describe how or why.

 

As for Dark Energy...we are basically labeling this effect with the Term.

 

Split Infinity

[imatfaal]

Well...whatever is causing acceleration must be specific to an EFFECT not a Force.

 

If you state that the Big Bang is causing the majority of this...I think you would be hard pressed to describe how or why.

 

As for Dark Energy...we are basically labeling this effect with the Term.

 

Split Infinity

 

you're confusion metric expansion which is due to the big bang and has caused the red-shifting of the CMB and is the reason many of your assertions in the last few posts were manifestly incorrect; with accelerated expansion which is a recent discovery which is being driven by an unknown which we give the placeholder name dark energy and has very little to do with the question.

[SplitInfinity]

you're confusion metric expansion which is due to the big bang and has caused the red-shifting of the CMB and is the reason many of your assertions in the last few posts were manifestly incorrect; with accelerated expansion which is a recent discovery which is being driven by an unknown which we give the placeholder name dark energy and has very little to do with the question.

 

OK...you and I have had another misunderstanding AGAIN. And after reading both our posts...it seems as if both of us are responsible.

 

As far as the Big Bang being responsible for Universal Expansion...sure...I can see this...to a POINT of Space and Time.

 

Using a model that would represent the Big Bang and the Matter and Energy distribution and thus the creation thus Inflation of our Universal Space/Time...all Matter and Quanta in a state of Universal Inflation without the benefit of Dark Energy Effect...as you have stated...would have a Finite Ability to expand.

 

The reason for this would of course be Gravity. Since even a single solitary Atom warps Space/Time around it and thus has effect...an extremely small effect...but effect none the less...to influence all Matter and Energy in that Universal Space/Time. If there was no Dark Energy Effect...Universal Expansion would reach a certain point by which it would stop Inflation and begin to Crunch.

 

Calculated distances specific to estimates of Matter/Energy velocity at...during and after the Big Bang cannot be used in this way as since at the time and during the immediate after effect of the Big Bang...extreme Matter/Energy distances were made possible by way of areas of Fold Space/Time intrinsic to Universal Creation and Inflation which now gives us distances that could not be traversed at such velocities in Normal Space/Time.

 

Thus even though your statements and the evidence you post specific to recent research would seem to show the Big Bang calculations of outward force as a quantity specific to forcing Universal Matter and Energy to such velocities and distances...these calculations are false as this Matter and Energy did not travel as such in Normal Space/Time.

 

At a terminal distance...Dark Energy was required to accelerate Universal Expansion.

 

Split Infinity

[zapatos]

If there was no Dark Energy Effect...Universal Expansion would reach a certain point by which it would stop Inflation and begin to Crunch.

That is not necessarily so. Whether or not a Big Crunch begins must take into account the velocity of the expansion and the amount of mass in the universe. The universe could theoretically expand forever even without the effect of Dark Energy.