Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

How Large Is The Entire, Unobservable Universe?

#1
C C Offline
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...e20953df80

EXCERPT: . . . So what can we say about the part of the Universe that's beyond the limits of our observations? We can only make inferences based on the laws of physics as we know them, and the things we can measure within our observable Universe. For example, we observe that the Universe is spatially flat on the largest scales: it's neither positively nor negatively curved, to a precision of 0.25%. If we assume that our current laws of physics are correct, we can set limits on how large, at least, the Universe must be before it curves back on itself.

Observations from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Planck satellite are where we get the best data. They tell us that if the Universe does curve back in on itself and close, the part we can see is so indistinguishable from "uncurved" that it must be at least 250 times the radius of the observable part.

This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe. If we're willing to speculate, however, we can argue quite compellingly that the unobservable Universe should be significantly even bigger than that...

MORE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...e20953df80
Reply
#2
Zinjanthropos Offline
If space is nothing then how can one measure it? By observable we mean galaxies, which are only points of light in what could actual be a whole lot of nothing.
Reply
Reply
#4
Ostronomos Offline
(Jul 17, 2018 06:37 PM)C C Wrote: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...e20953df80

EXCERPT: . . . So what can we say about the part of the Universe that's beyond the limits of our observations? We can only make inferences based on the laws of physics as we know them, and the things we can measure within our observable Universe. For example, we observe that the Universe is spatially flat on the largest scales: it's neither positively nor negatively curved, to a precision of 0.25%. If we assume that our current laws of physics are correct, we can set limits on how large, at least, the Universe must be before it curves back on itself.

Observations from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Planck satellite are where we get the best data. They tell us that if the Universe does curve back in on itself and close, the part we can see is so indistinguishable from "uncurved" that it must be at least 250 times the radius of the observable part.

This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe. If we're willing to speculate, however, we can argue quite compellingly that the unobservable Universe should be significantly even bigger than that...

MORE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...e20953df80

Can anyone else spot the contradiction?

Anyway, in terms of being spatially flat on the largest scales, that is no surprise. The topological regularity of the universe by virtue of it being so incredibly massive, is due to its conformity to pressure from the initial spontaneous generation by quantum fluctuation.

(Jul 17, 2018 08:24 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: If space is nothing then how can one measure it? By observable we mean galaxies, which are only points of light in what could actual be a whole lot of nothing.

To equate space with nothing is to assume that space is the most basic form or medium of reality and is neither a manifestation of anything nor a property. Contrary to this belief, space, in general relativity, was created by the Big Bang and exists as part of the object-space-time triality as proposed in the comprehensive TOE known as the CTMU.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)