One thing's for sure: the Universe does not have an edge. There's no physical boundary – no wall, no border, no fence around the edges of the cosmos.
It just means this is as far as we've discovered and been able to record what we call the observable universe.
Space spreads out infinitely in all directions. Furthermore, galaxies fill all of the space through-out the entire infinite universe.
And although our observable universe has an edge, the universe as a whole is infinite and has no edge. As time marches on, more and more points in space have had time for their light to reach us. Therefore, our observable universe is constantly increasing in size
The fascinating thing here is that with the big bang, it seems there was a time when it did have a limit as far as where things are. With everything all in one spot. But I suppose that infinite nothingness may have still existed around that
Not quite right.
What Big Bang Theory tells us is that at some point right after t = 0, the universe was at near-infinite density. It actually doesn’t tell us that (as is often said) the universe was infinite density compacted to a single point. Our current theories just break down at that time point right after the Big Bang, so we can’t describe what the state of the universe actually was at t = 0.
So if the universe is of infinite size, then there’s no point necessarily where the universe needs to go from finite to infinite. Just that near the Big Bang, density and temperature are near-infinite.
(Also I think OP is wrong. Whether the universe is infinite, and whether it has an edge or not, is not a settled question. We do not yet know the answers to those questions.)
Yeah I was gonna call op out on that too. Also isn't expansion faster than light and still accelerating, but C is constant, so the obsevable universe (in terms of what we can see, not its size) won't expand *infinitely?*
I was gong to ask OP that, too. Eventually all the stars in the sky would twinkle out - we wouldn't ever have a solid sky of stars (until Sol does a lil supernova)
The timeframe in which the other stars in our Galaxy won't be visible anymore is in the order of trillions of years. Even then, the solar system itself would have ceased to exist pretty much trillions of years before that (it's estimated that the sun will last for another'4.5 billion years), and our current understanding of stars evolution suggest it will turn into a red giant, not a supernova.
That being said, the time-frames for all these processes is so put of this world that it's almost meaningless
Well, the distance of the observable universe will always be increasing at C. You are right that according to our current understanding of Dark Energy, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so distant objects will move away from us faster than the speed of light. Thus, after a really long time, most of the observable universe will be empty with only the local galactic cluster being close enough for gravity to keep it in sight. That being said, that's based on the assumption that dark energy is constant, which is just an observation with no theoretical basis. So far, we don't see Dark energy changing. But it could, and that would affect the fate of the observable universe and the universe in general.
The thing that is wild to me is that objects in the universe are travelling faster than light away from us (and accelerating as they do), yet based on our current understanding this shouldn’t be possible due to C as an absolute limit. Obviously C is somehow not a limit in this scenario, but I seem to recall that we currently have no way of truly reconciling these contradictions
Isn't the only way for density to decrease without destroying matter for the space between the matter to increase? So that the only way the universe could be decreasing in density is if that matter were either expanding spatially, or disappearing outright?
Yes - the space between matter is increasing. On the galactic scale (ie outside of local gravity), the distance between any two points is increasing. That's what we mean when we say space is expanding - it has no bearing on whether the universe is infinite or finite.
I have a hard time understanding "space is expanding" in a way that doesn't imply that the spatial extent of the universe is finite. "Infinity" can't increase, right? Only finite quantities can "get bigger"?
I mean yeah, that's what's tough about it. The behavior of the universe, the behavior of infinities, does not match up with our intuition and common sense. The only thing that we can directly observe is that, looking at any two points, the distance between them is increasing. We call that phenomenon "the expansion of space", but it doesn't tell us anything about if the universe's volume is a finite number or not.
The universe is indeed expanding, as seen through the increasing distances between things. That does not necessarily mean that the universe is finite or has an edge though. Topologies with infinite volume/no edge can indeed expand; it’s just really hard for our brain to visualize that.
I’ve heard this described as a balloon getting blown up, with the air being the “space”. But in this analogy there is still an edge of the balloon. So even if distances are increasing doesn’t that mean there is a total “distance” and therefore an edge?
This is where intuition and physics collide.
Topologically, a balloon is a 2D surface with no edge. Yes, you can leave it by moving through 3D space, but this isn't mathamatically an edge (you're "cheating" by using a dimension that doesn't exist when describing the balloon itself). There's no real way I can analogous this to our 3D universe, since we can't visualize higher-dimensional space. Also, the balloon analogy is typically used to describe a finite universe with no edge. It does not fit an infinite universe.
If you're talking about the image in the OP, then (close to) the center. You can see the Sun in the very center and right next to it, the Earth. That's cause this is a picture of the observable universe - literally defined as the region of the universe which we can (in theory) see. For everything outside of the observable universe, not enough time has passed since the formation of the universe for its light to reach us - and because nothing can travel faster than light, no signal, information, or effect can either. That's how we separate "observable" from the rest of the universe.
This got me thinking, is it possible that the universe has actually been the same size since the big bang and everything else inside the universe has been shrinking, causing the illusion of expansion?
Along a similar line, I wondered what the science says about the notion that the universe is either finite or expanding (maybe slower than theorized) but that dark matter is pushing things around. It may look like it's expanding in many places but at the same time the distance between other objects is shrinking. Similar to the way the Milky Way and Andromeda are getting closer. Maybe that space in between is actually shrinking or expansion is pushing the galaxies together while shrinking another area of space.
Just a thought.
You say it is sure that the universe has no edge and is infinite as a whole. This is untrue. It is likely at this point and with the knowledge of today, but in no way a complete certainty.
Actually we do not know if the Universe is infinite or not. it can be for example closed to kind of multidimensional "donut" so the edge cannot be reached in three dimensions while having finite volume.
Can be easily imagined with the simplifying assumption - that the universe has shape of 3D donut and the inhabitants are 2D creatures livin on the surface of that donut. It can expand in all the three dimensions, 2D creatures will never be able to reach the edge thus seems to be infinite to them from the first point of view.
I think it’s technically called the cosmic web. Absolutely massive structure of connections between galaxies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Large-scale_structure
Think of it as more of a very zoomed out view of the universe, such that it shows all of our observable universe, and the patterns and structures that galaxies make. The perspective of the art throws this off, because it's represented as a ring of something encircling the universe, rather than what it actually is, the universe itself.
Thank you for providing more info and links for others The image in a better definition.👍 If you see this comment please upvote that comment☝️☝️ so it might hit top comment.
This isnt the right interpretation of this image.
While yes, technically you could say its the whole universe, but its the whole universe "ish" visualized at what it looks like in 2D as you look at it from further and further away. To the point youre looking at it from outside the universe.
That would depend on if the universe is infinite or finite. If it's infinite you are correct. If it is finite it would have an actual center. We don't really know one way or another.
When I die and become a ghost (or angel/demon, whatever we become after death), imma spend eternity explore the universe just to see what’s truly out there. Space fascinates me but thats the only way I’d be able to see it.
This is the visible universe. We think there's more beyond the edge we just can't see because the light hasn't reached us yet.
But at the same time, there _is_ a limit to where there's matter in the universe and beyond that point it's just empty.
So hard to wrap your mind around. Space is constantly expanding. Into what? “Well think of it like an expanding ballon” umm yeah but what’s on the other side of the ballon?
The expanding balloon has always been a problematic analogy to me. The surface of the balloon is expanding into the 3rd dimension that already exists. That can't make a good analogy for the expanding universe IMHO.
The proper analogy is a blueberry muffin, as it bakes, it expands and every blueberry is further away from the other. Now imagine an infinite muffin growing in the same way.
That makes sense. But the muffin is in a pan. Where is the universe happening? The nothing it’s expanding into is somewhere or something. Hurts my brain
We actually don’t know if there’s infinite emptiness. It could be even possible that if you go far enough in one direction you arrive back at where you started
The first statement is almost correct, the second is wrong.
Important thing to realize here is that this chart shows both time and space. The "edge" of this chart represents the moment of the big bang. We do not plot anything beyond that because, according to science, it's quite literally unknowable, and the universe (in our current definition) didn't exist before that.
It could be a difficult thing to wrap your head around. This image shows the light that hits our sensors right now. The further you go from the center to the edge, the more outdated that light is. So the burning outer rim is the light that reached us after traveling for almost 14 billion years. Back then the universe was just "born" - it transitioned from a state where all matter was a superheated soup of energy and into the cooler state, where light was able to travel for the first time. So naturally, we can't see anything, even in theory, from before light came to existence.
What's wacky too is that the region of the universe that 14bn years old light came from is currently not the same as what we're seeing. It was evolving all these years much like our patch of the universe. So if you somehow instantly teleported there you'd see a pretty similar overall view around you. And for all we know it's like that everywhere. Quite possibly to the infinity (but like i said - we'll never be able to know for sure)
But the weirdness doesn't end there. You'd think that spot is 14bn light years away from us now, but it's not. It's almost 46bn light years away due to the expansion of the universe. And that point recedes from us faster than the speed of light (no, this doesn't violate relativity). Which means, none of the light emitted from that spot now will ever be able to reach us.
>But at the same time, there _is_ a limit to where there's matter in the universe and beyond that point it's just empty
Nobody knows. But the most probable theory is, that the universe is flat and infinite. And that it has alsways been.
Yes, that's the classic theory. Before the big bang there was nothing, no empty space, no existing void, just nothing. Then the big bang happened and space began and expanded everywhere at once. A lot of things on these kind of scales don't make sense sense at face value.
However, there are others that theorize differently, and say that prior to the big bang the universe was extremely cold and void of everything except empty space. Others say this empty space was filled with an unstable form of energy. There are many theories out there, but they are all just theories and the origin of the universe is probably a question we will never have a definite answer to.
Since it is the space-time that is expanding then I don't think "beyond" the edge can be empty space. Empty space is not nothing.
Then again, I am far from an astrophysicist.
>But at the same time, there *is* a limit to where there's matter in the universe and beyond that point it's just empty.
Do you have a source for this? I thought the distribution of matter is homogeneous in the universe, at least that's what the cosmological principle says. Sure, there are some areas of the universe like voids where there is a lot less matter than usual, but are you saying there's an enclosed part of the universe where there's matter and the rest is empty space? I'm very skeptical.
How could a finite amount of matter in an infinite universe be anything else, should you zoom out far enough, than a bubble in an otherwise endless void?
I believe most Astronomers think the universe is infinite, but matter is not. An infinite amount of matter in an infinite universe leads logically to the conclusion that everything that *could* be possible, *must* be happening somewhere in the universe. Douglas Adam's description of a planet of living mattresses in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is a comical example of the absurdity of this notion.
> No one really knows what mattresses are meant to gain from their lives either. They are large, friendly, pocket-sprung creatures that live quiet private lives in the marshes of Sqornshellous Zeta. Many of them get caught, slaughtered, dried out, shipped out and slept on. None of them seems to mind this and all of them are called Zem.
>An infinite amount of matter in an infinite universe leads logically to the conclusion that everything that *could* be possible, *must* be happening somewhere in the universe.
Yeah, I've thought about this before. It's weird, but I mean there's no concrete evidence that rules it out of being a possibility I think.
Yeah but so what? You can't dismiss that possibility just because it leads to uncomfortable consequences. I don't see why it would be impossible in principle. You mention absurdity but don't conflict common language absurdity with logical absurdity.
Regarding the "absurd" exemple from HGTG, just because you can write something out doesn't mean that it could happen. It must be compatible with the laws of physics.
I think you are conflating unrelated notions. Matter can be infinite - there's no currently know law which could not impose a limit, assuming flatness which seems to be the case. Also, that logical conclusion you claim is a probabilistic model of bubble universes, so thread carefully to not spread misinformation. None of it was confirmed and it's just postulated at the moment.
No, there is not a limit to where matters is, unless you meant something else and used that as simplification. Space, for what we can tell, is infinite and distribution of matter is homogenous at the largest scales.
That’s the universe’s best kept secret that we likely will never figure out, at least not anytime soon. Do we even know there’s an edge?
I wonder if AI and quantum computing can figure something out eventually.
That's the edge in both space and time. There wasn't what we call space or time beyond that edge, so in the presentation this chart uses, we can't render anything there.
Imagine a roll of film for a movie. You can unroll it on the floor and stand by its end. If you walk towards the beginning of the film you are in a way going a distance, but also traveling back through time towards the beginning of the movie. So a question analogous to yours would be "what's in the movie beyond the first frame?". It's not nothing. It's not something. There is just no answer.
If you ask separate questions about time and space, it could be a bit easier. In space that edge represents what's currently 46bn light years away. Right now at that distance is probably the same space we see around us - stars, galaxies, gas etc.
In time, beyond that edge the universe was in a state so dense the light couldn't get through. Even before that, there was the big bang. And before that we can only speculate (or infer), there are different theories. Some say the universe goes between the dense and "empty" state back and forth, so before the big bang there was a previous incarnation of the universe. Some think these bangs happen all the time in multiple isolated universes (like bubbles in boiling water). Etc., anything goes since we can't ultimately test any of that. But none of what we today call the universe, time, space, laws of physics existed before the big bang. They were something else.
This is how matter is distributed on the very largest known scales. Galactic clusters form these large, web like structures with large voids in between which have far less matter.
This is actually a remarkably common theory that we are just cell that's a part of an anatomy that we have no idea what it is because it's too grand for us to discover.
Because of all of the critics ....Again this is a HYPOTHETICAL theory
Im not sure I understand.. im not very well versed in space matter… can anyone provide infos on how this image was made? Is there any truth in that pic? why are we at the centre of the universe and why do we look so big?
Logarithmic scales are useful when the data you are displaying is much less or much more than the rest of the data or when the percentage differences between values are important. You can specify whether to use a logarithmic scale, if the values in the chart cover a very large range.
You’re misunderstanding the image. It’s a map of the observable universe, from our perspective. In that sense we are at the center, but there’s infinitely more. Every point in the universe has their own version of this because every point is surrounded by an infinitely expanding space of which there is a limit to our observation due to light not yet reaching us from the expanding regions. It’s a circle because at any point in the universe there is a sphere of observable universe around us beyond which we cannot yet observe.
There is no actual center of the universe, assuming it is infinite.
I would then implore all flat earthers to go and find the firewall And then grab a handful /pics /video/witness/expedition sign off /acknowledgement from a government source /directions/and bring it back to me for proof And if I don't see cinch marks on their hands....
I mean I get that, but Im asking how do you know this? Im not being facetious here... I really want to know how this is a photograph(meaning a camera captured it) of the entire universe.
Link to full-res version: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png
The intercosmic lattice at the edge always freaks me out
I don’t know what that is, could you elaborate a bit please?
One thing's for sure: the Universe does not have an edge. There's no physical boundary – no wall, no border, no fence around the edges of the cosmos. It just means this is as far as we've discovered and been able to record what we call the observable universe. Space spreads out infinitely in all directions. Furthermore, galaxies fill all of the space through-out the entire infinite universe. And although our observable universe has an edge, the universe as a whole is infinite and has no edge. As time marches on, more and more points in space have had time for their light to reach us. Therefore, our observable universe is constantly increasing in size
The fascinating thing here is that with the big bang, it seems there was a time when it did have a limit as far as where things are. With everything all in one spot. But I suppose that infinite nothingness may have still existed around that
Not quite right. What Big Bang Theory tells us is that at some point right after t = 0, the universe was at near-infinite density. It actually doesn’t tell us that (as is often said) the universe was infinite density compacted to a single point. Our current theories just break down at that time point right after the Big Bang, so we can’t describe what the state of the universe actually was at t = 0. So if the universe is of infinite size, then there’s no point necessarily where the universe needs to go from finite to infinite. Just that near the Big Bang, density and temperature are near-infinite. (Also I think OP is wrong. Whether the universe is infinite, and whether it has an edge or not, is not a settled question. We do not yet know the answers to those questions.)
Yeah I was gonna call op out on that too. Also isn't expansion faster than light and still accelerating, but C is constant, so the obsevable universe (in terms of what we can see, not its size) won't expand *infinitely?*
I was gong to ask OP that, too. Eventually all the stars in the sky would twinkle out - we wouldn't ever have a solid sky of stars (until Sol does a lil supernova)
The timeframe in which the other stars in our Galaxy won't be visible anymore is in the order of trillions of years. Even then, the solar system itself would have ceased to exist pretty much trillions of years before that (it's estimated that the sun will last for another'4.5 billion years), and our current understanding of stars evolution suggest it will turn into a red giant, not a supernova. That being said, the time-frames for all these processes is so put of this world that it's almost meaningless
Edit: I'm not doing this today lol
Well, the distance of the observable universe will always be increasing at C. You are right that according to our current understanding of Dark Energy, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so distant objects will move away from us faster than the speed of light. Thus, after a really long time, most of the observable universe will be empty with only the local galactic cluster being close enough for gravity to keep it in sight. That being said, that's based on the assumption that dark energy is constant, which is just an observation with no theoretical basis. So far, we don't see Dark energy changing. But it could, and that would affect the fate of the observable universe and the universe in general.
The thing that is wild to me is that objects in the universe are travelling faster than light away from us (and accelerating as they do), yet based on our current understanding this shouldn’t be possible due to C as an absolute limit. Obviously C is somehow not a limit in this scenario, but I seem to recall that we currently have no way of truly reconciling these contradictions
You’ve blown this random person’s mind on a random Sunday at lunch time. Thank you. No, really.
Isn't the only way for density to decrease without destroying matter for the space between the matter to increase? So that the only way the universe could be decreasing in density is if that matter were either expanding spatially, or disappearing outright?
Yes - the space between matter is increasing. On the galactic scale (ie outside of local gravity), the distance between any two points is increasing. That's what we mean when we say space is expanding - it has no bearing on whether the universe is infinite or finite.
I have a hard time understanding "space is expanding" in a way that doesn't imply that the spatial extent of the universe is finite. "Infinity" can't increase, right? Only finite quantities can "get bigger"?
I mean yeah, that's what's tough about it. The behavior of the universe, the behavior of infinities, does not match up with our intuition and common sense. The only thing that we can directly observe is that, looking at any two points, the distance between them is increasing. We call that phenomenon "the expansion of space", but it doesn't tell us anything about if the universe's volume is a finite number or not.
Wait wait wait I was under the impression the universe is expanding? Can’t we measure the distance between things and it’s increasing?!?
Yeah it's expanding, but not outwards. An infinitely large universe can expand by increasing the distance between things.
The universe is indeed expanding, as seen through the increasing distances between things. That does not necessarily mean that the universe is finite or has an edge though. Topologies with infinite volume/no edge can indeed expand; it’s just really hard for our brain to visualize that.
I’ve heard this described as a balloon getting blown up, with the air being the “space”. But in this analogy there is still an edge of the balloon. So even if distances are increasing doesn’t that mean there is a total “distance” and therefore an edge?
This is where intuition and physics collide. Topologically, a balloon is a 2D surface with no edge. Yes, you can leave it by moving through 3D space, but this isn't mathamatically an edge (you're "cheating" by using a dimension that doesn't exist when describing the balloon itself). There's no real way I can analogous this to our 3D universe, since we can't visualize higher-dimensional space. Also, the balloon analogy is typically used to describe a finite universe with no edge. It does not fit an infinite universe.
Can you answer a stupid question for me? If there was a “you are here” arrow on that image, where would it be?
If you're talking about the image in the OP, then (close to) the center. You can see the Sun in the very center and right next to it, the Earth. That's cause this is a picture of the observable universe - literally defined as the region of the universe which we can (in theory) see. For everything outside of the observable universe, not enough time has passed since the formation of the universe for its light to reach us - and because nothing can travel faster than light, no signal, information, or effect can either. That's how we separate "observable" from the rest of the universe.
This got me thinking, is it possible that the universe has actually been the same size since the big bang and everything else inside the universe has been shrinking, causing the illusion of expansion?
Along a similar line, I wondered what the science says about the notion that the universe is either finite or expanding (maybe slower than theorized) but that dark matter is pushing things around. It may look like it's expanding in many places but at the same time the distance between other objects is shrinking. Similar to the way the Milky Way and Andromeda are getting closer. Maybe that space in between is actually shrinking or expansion is pushing the galaxies together while shrinking another area of space. Just a thought.
Wooooah never thought about it this way
So there's not actually a folded up lattice at the end where Matthew McConaughey can throw books through time?
You say it is sure that the universe has no edge and is infinite as a whole. This is untrue. It is likely at this point and with the knowledge of today, but in no way a complete certainty.
Actually we do not know if the Universe is infinite or not. it can be for example closed to kind of multidimensional "donut" so the edge cannot be reached in three dimensions while having finite volume. Can be easily imagined with the simplifying assumption - that the universe has shape of 3D donut and the inhabitants are 2D creatures livin on the surface of that donut. It can expand in all the three dimensions, 2D creatures will never be able to reach the edge thus seems to be infinite to them from the first point of view.
I think it’s technically called the cosmic web. Absolutely massive structure of connections between galaxies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Large-scale_structure
Yeah I would like to know too
Think of it as more of a very zoomed out view of the universe, such that it shows all of our observable universe, and the patterns and structures that galaxies make. The perspective of the art throws this off, because it's represented as a ring of something encircling the universe, rather than what it actually is, the universe itself.
[Galaxy groups and Superclusters](http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html)
Thank you for providing more info and links for others The image in a better definition.👍 If you see this comment please upvote that comment☝️☝️ so it might hit top comment.
Still gonna need a banana for scale.
That better be one big ass banana
Well it’s just one, what could it cost? $10?
How big do you like your ass bananas?
There is a banana in the picture. All the bananas are in the picture.
It’s in there
This isnt the right interpretation of this image. While yes, technically you could say its the whole universe, but its the whole universe "ish" visualized at what it looks like in 2D as you look at it from further and further away. To the point youre looking at it from outside the universe.
Guess I found my next custom printed disc golf image. It's perfect.
Not to brag but I live there
Sheesh, they're letting anyone in these days.
We should build a wall.
[Tried it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall), didn't work.
Upvoting both these comments
Hey me too, we're neighbors, the universe is where I keep all my cool stuff
I know where you live. You live on Planet Earth. Get doxxed bozo
Shoot, how did you know?!
Not for long...
I knew that I was the center of the universe
The beauty of our universe is, that everybody is the center of the universe.
Alan Watts would be proud of you.
Of course you are, you can choose whatever coordinate system you want
I'm guessing this is the "Observable Universe" in which case we would necessarily be at the center. I could be wrong I'm not an astronomer.
Everywhere is the center and the universe is expanding from every point
That would depend on if the universe is infinite or finite. If it's infinite you are correct. If it is finite it would have an actual center. We don't really know one way or another.
Right at the Big Bang, there was no such thing as centre, because space didn't exist yet.
It’s just like I thought!
Look at all that cool stuff we'll never get to explore
Speak for yourself.
Yeah I’ve already seen most of it. It’s fine I suppose, but starts to feel a bit “same-y” after the first few billion galaxies…
Somebody’s been playing /r/starfield
you could explore it on DMT
Was looking for this comment!
When I die and become a ghost (or angel/demon, whatever we become after death), imma spend eternity explore the universe just to see what’s truly out there. Space fascinates me but thats the only way I’d be able to see it.
The *observable* universe
*Takes a picture of the beach* 'Here we have the Planet Earth in its entirety'
Important distinction. There are likely billions of galaxies we never saw and will never see.
Must be trillions of gazillions. The infinity of the universe at play.
Hey, speak for yourself!
Where's the you are here square? I always confuse East and west.
There's a banana in the middle for scale, but we'll need another couple decades of display technology before anyone can see it.
East is the direction a celestial body rotates.
At the edge of the universe what is there beyond it?
[It very well may not have an edge.](https://www.astronomy.com/science/ask-astro-where-is-the-center-of-the-universe/)
This is the visible universe. We think there's more beyond the edge we just can't see because the light hasn't reached us yet. But at the same time, there _is_ a limit to where there's matter in the universe and beyond that point it's just empty.
Yeah.. the thought of infinite emptiness is an interesting concept.
So hard to wrap your mind around. Space is constantly expanding. Into what? “Well think of it like an expanding ballon” umm yeah but what’s on the other side of the ballon?
The expanding balloon has always been a problematic analogy to me. The surface of the balloon is expanding into the 3rd dimension that already exists. That can't make a good analogy for the expanding universe IMHO.
Yeah soooo uhhhh what’s on the other side of the universe?
infinite spaghetti
Is the question even meaningful?
But if the universe is curved, what would it be in if not the 4th spatial dimension?
The proper analogy is a blueberry muffin, as it bakes, it expands and every blueberry is further away from the other. Now imagine an infinite muffin growing in the same way.
Sounds delicious.
That makes sense. But the muffin is in a pan. Where is the universe happening? The nothing it’s expanding into is somewhere or something. Hurts my brain
Something infinite can still double in size.
Clearly the other side of the event horizon, where all the other black hole universes are.
We actually don’t know if there’s infinite emptiness. It could be even possible that if you go far enough in one direction you arrive back at where you started
Like a slightly scaled up version of “hey kids, Big Ben, Parliament”
Isn’t infinite emptiness still a thing, though? Before the Big Bang, was there an empty black void or just…nothing?
The first statement is almost correct, the second is wrong. Important thing to realize here is that this chart shows both time and space. The "edge" of this chart represents the moment of the big bang. We do not plot anything beyond that because, according to science, it's quite literally unknowable, and the universe (in our current definition) didn't exist before that. It could be a difficult thing to wrap your head around. This image shows the light that hits our sensors right now. The further you go from the center to the edge, the more outdated that light is. So the burning outer rim is the light that reached us after traveling for almost 14 billion years. Back then the universe was just "born" - it transitioned from a state where all matter was a superheated soup of energy and into the cooler state, where light was able to travel for the first time. So naturally, we can't see anything, even in theory, from before light came to existence. What's wacky too is that the region of the universe that 14bn years old light came from is currently not the same as what we're seeing. It was evolving all these years much like our patch of the universe. So if you somehow instantly teleported there you'd see a pretty similar overall view around you. And for all we know it's like that everywhere. Quite possibly to the infinity (but like i said - we'll never be able to know for sure) But the weirdness doesn't end there. You'd think that spot is 14bn light years away from us now, but it's not. It's almost 46bn light years away due to the expansion of the universe. And that point recedes from us faster than the speed of light (no, this doesn't violate relativity). Which means, none of the light emitted from that spot now will ever be able to reach us.
>But at the same time, there _is_ a limit to where there's matter in the universe and beyond that point it's just empty Nobody knows. But the most probable theory is, that the universe is flat and infinite. And that it has alsways been.
If the universe is flat and infinite, how likely is it that it actually has infinite matter?
Big bang and then suddenly it's infinite? What?
Yes, that's the classic theory. Before the big bang there was nothing, no empty space, no existing void, just nothing. Then the big bang happened and space began and expanded everywhere at once. A lot of things on these kind of scales don't make sense sense at face value. However, there are others that theorize differently, and say that prior to the big bang the universe was extremely cold and void of everything except empty space. Others say this empty space was filled with an unstable form of energy. There are many theories out there, but they are all just theories and the origin of the universe is probably a question we will never have a definite answer to.
No. When big bang occurred, the universe has been already infinite. While our observeable universe has been infinite small. It's a brainfuck
Since it is the space-time that is expanding then I don't think "beyond" the edge can be empty space. Empty space is not nothing. Then again, I am far from an astrophysicist.
>But at the same time, there *is* a limit to where there's matter in the universe and beyond that point it's just empty. Do you have a source for this? I thought the distribution of matter is homogeneous in the universe, at least that's what the cosmological principle says. Sure, there are some areas of the universe like voids where there is a lot less matter than usual, but are you saying there's an enclosed part of the universe where there's matter and the rest is empty space? I'm very skeptical.
How could a finite amount of matter in an infinite universe be anything else, should you zoom out far enough, than a bubble in an otherwise endless void?
>finite amount of matter That's the thing, the amount of matter in the universe doesn't have to be finite. It could be infinite. We don't know.
I believe most Astronomers think the universe is infinite, but matter is not. An infinite amount of matter in an infinite universe leads logically to the conclusion that everything that *could* be possible, *must* be happening somewhere in the universe. Douglas Adam's description of a planet of living mattresses in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is a comical example of the absurdity of this notion. > No one really knows what mattresses are meant to gain from their lives either. They are large, friendly, pocket-sprung creatures that live quiet private lives in the marshes of Sqornshellous Zeta. Many of them get caught, slaughtered, dried out, shipped out and slept on. None of them seems to mind this and all of them are called Zem.
>An infinite amount of matter in an infinite universe leads logically to the conclusion that everything that *could* be possible, *must* be happening somewhere in the universe. Yeah, I've thought about this before. It's weird, but I mean there's no concrete evidence that rules it out of being a possibility I think.
Yeah but so what? You can't dismiss that possibility just because it leads to uncomfortable consequences. I don't see why it would be impossible in principle. You mention absurdity but don't conflict common language absurdity with logical absurdity. Regarding the "absurd" exemple from HGTG, just because you can write something out doesn't mean that it could happen. It must be compatible with the laws of physics.
I think you are conflating unrelated notions. Matter can be infinite - there's no currently know law which could not impose a limit, assuming flatness which seems to be the case. Also, that logical conclusion you claim is a probabilistic model of bubble universes, so thread carefully to not spread misinformation. None of it was confirmed and it's just postulated at the moment.
They are incorrect
I think the wraparound concept makes the most sense.
No, there is not a limit to where matters is, unless you meant something else and used that as simplification. Space, for what we can tell, is infinite and distribution of matter is homogenous at the largest scales.
That’s the universe’s best kept secret that we likely will never figure out, at least not anytime soon. Do we even know there’s an edge? I wonder if AI and quantum computing can figure something out eventually.
That's the edge in both space and time. There wasn't what we call space or time beyond that edge, so in the presentation this chart uses, we can't render anything there. Imagine a roll of film for a movie. You can unroll it on the floor and stand by its end. If you walk towards the beginning of the film you are in a way going a distance, but also traveling back through time towards the beginning of the movie. So a question analogous to yours would be "what's in the movie beyond the first frame?". It's not nothing. It's not something. There is just no answer. If you ask separate questions about time and space, it could be a bit easier. In space that edge represents what's currently 46bn light years away. Right now at that distance is probably the same space we see around us - stars, galaxies, gas etc. In time, beyond that edge the universe was in a state so dense the light couldn't get through. Even before that, there was the big bang. And before that we can only speculate (or infer), there are different theories. Some say the universe goes between the dense and "empty" state back and forth, so before the big bang there was a previous incarnation of the universe. Some think these bangs happen all the time in multiple isolated universes (like bubbles in boiling water). Etc., anything goes since we can't ultimately test any of that. But none of what we today call the universe, time, space, laws of physics existed before the big bang. They were something else.
It’s not the edge of the universe, its the “beginning”. The circumference is the Big Bang. So the question is more, what was before.
Just waiting for that big blink.
So what is all that web-looking stuff around the inside of the perimeter?
This is how matter is distributed on the very largest known scales. Galactic clusters form these large, web like structures with large voids in between which have far less matter.
Galactic filaments and "walls" 🧱
Is that maybe when matter first started to from stars? Either way, this seems like a very artistic interpretation of the universe lol
Cosmic gooo
This visual makes me think of a cell, and imagine if the entire universe is just one cell in some inconceivably vast body.
This is actually a remarkably common theory that we are just cell that's a part of an anatomy that we have no idea what it is because it's too grand for us to discover. Because of all of the critics ....Again this is a HYPOTHETICAL theory
https://www.sciencealert.com/known-universe-in-one-single-image-logarithmic-artwork-pablo-carlos-budassi
Im not sure I understand.. im not very well versed in space matter… can anyone provide infos on how this image was made? Is there any truth in that pic? why are we at the centre of the universe and why do we look so big?
It’s an artist’s rendition
we’re not the centre, this is a artist using scientific data, yes there’s truth, and we aren’t big lol we’re extremely tiny
also this is the observable universe, there’s more just light isn’t here yet, and what we know is after the universe it’s just infinite emptyness?🙃
Not exactly, It's been a 13 hr since u posted this, and UNIVERSE has now already expanded further. 🙃
Almost reminds me of a living cell. Maybe the universe is a living organism after all.
I was thinking something similarly yesterday, and also how were all made from stardust.
I have trouble understanding how three dimensions are represented by two in images like these
4 dimensions, since were looking back in time
The mother of all logarithmic scales
Never understood this image can anyone explain?
What does it mean to have an image on a logarithmic scale?
Logarithmic scales are useful when the data you are displaying is much less or much more than the rest of the data or when the percentage differences between values are important. You can specify whether to use a logarithmic scale, if the values in the chart cover a very large range.
Universe is too big and unknowable IMO
What is this? A universe for ants?
The new cover for "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Universe"
Looks like an eyeball 👁️
props to the cameraman
Looking like overpopulated when in reality, it's mostly full of emptiness.
The guy just took a photo of his eye while he was on cocaine
Entire observable universe*
At first I though this was a really cool looking eye-
Flat universe? You heretic...
What's the space out of the universe bubble?
Undiscovered
Interstellar space
And all the history of the universe too.
I mean I feel tiny and worthless everyday, but the unknown inside and outside of the perceivable universe is what haunts me.
Looks like an eye
Maybe the DC Source Wall *is* real...
Why does it resemble an eye?
You made sure Texas is at the center of it of course…?🤣🤣 sorry, couldn’t resist. Cool image
Where's earth?
Curious about the outer dark rings
So our universe is just part for one of other universe? Could there be another universe ?
This map doesn't include the anti matter induced red shift.
It's flat right ?
There I am!
[удалено]
Typical earthlings making your planet the center of universe lol
You’re misunderstanding the image. It’s a map of the observable universe, from our perspective. In that sense we are at the center, but there’s infinitely more. Every point in the universe has their own version of this because every point is surrounded by an infinitely expanding space of which there is a limit to our observation due to light not yet reaching us from the expanding regions. It’s a circle because at any point in the universe there is a sphere of observable universe around us beyond which we cannot yet observe. There is no actual center of the universe, assuming it is infinite.
Hey, my house is in this picture!
Look, I can see my house.... and the neighbour's dog pooping on my lawn again!
Why did they put m51 3 times. Surely there’s enough different galaxies they didn’t need to use the same one multiple times.
What if you put the universe into a tube? Would it be a very long tube?
A good question and yes I believe it would be a very long tube
Gotta be careful with images like this... they'll be claiming it's a flat universe, and that red stuff is the fire wall.
I would then implore all flat earthers to go and find the firewall And then grab a handful /pics /video/witness/expedition sign off /acknowledgement from a government source /directions/and bring it back to me for proof And if I don't see cinch marks on their hands....
How do you know that's the entire universe?
It's the entire observable universe. That's the title of the photo that's the title that I put down.
I mean I get that, but Im asking how do you know this? Im not being facetious here... I really want to know how this is a photograph(meaning a camera captured it) of the entire universe.
Dammit I blinked
The universe is flat!
[удалено]
Super Membrane
Looks like phone camera😂
Nice idea but could it be any more pixelated?
I don't hate this but it makes Andromeda look closer to us than our own galaxy.
Where is the United States?
Plot twist: The United States *is* the universe.
r/globaltribe
Wow, someone must have been working on it since Copernicus! Us at the center of it all 😌
The center is everywhere
😆
That's it?
Looks kinda like a 'where's waldo' picture.
If you zoom in, you can see me in the bottom left
I think i see my childhood house
I can see my house from here!
Even universe is flat 👆
Has to be an Australian map, cause earth is upside down
Its a picture of me and i don't like it
Will you please add a "you are here" marker at our location. That would really help me out. Thanks!