How far until nothing?

[PB666]

There is some evolution going on the thought about. The one comment made is that einsteinian laws of the inflationary boundary are not limiting at the boundary. IOW relativity cannot be used to prove itself in all instances. That even if it consistent in the observable there is no guarantee its consistent everywhere If you are on the edge your conclusion would be different, The concept that the universe is flat on the observable large scale has been held since CMBR, meaning that euclidian geometry averaging out the effects of local gravitational wells is flat. But there could be reasons why that is not always true, for one we could be close to the center of inflation than much of the universe. The CNBR could be giving a false impression, warped by dark energy differential effect, or the large scale structure of the universe may exist and may be more evident in other observations.

This is listed under sci-fi, its a testimony to the fact the universe is expanding, and apparently the actual universe is much larger than what can be ascertained from the observable, which by itself is very large; to arrive at these hideous distances and still be flat, the instantaneous differential velocites of the extreme points of the universe are simply beyond our scope. Barring a infinite improbability drive (or warp drive) there is simply no way to achieve the speed or distance required to thoroughly test Einsteins prediction.

There is another issue of course, that is space-time during inflation. during inflation all space grows from adjacent space at the same rate, matter is immaterial and energy is so high that electromagnetism is not present space and time are not resolvable in the same manner as present. The assumption however that inflation stopped. There is a priblem with this however, dark energy. Did inflation stop everywhere snd how did it stop. Certainly inflation slowed down or the opaque epoch would never have been entered and exited. But the universe is not homogeneous, there are places we can see further back in time; galaxies millions of years older than the expected oldest visible galaxies.

In one scenario inflation is like a wave that keeps traveling outward with a fantastic comoving frame traveling faster and faster away from us, in this scenario instantaneous predictions of size are only useful at the very beginning of the universe and are virtually useless now because the concept of velocity at the fastest inflating areas is not a calculable quantity. To these frames our age is unfathomable, opaque phase hase not been entered and will, from our perspective never be exited. The laws of gravity that bind objects in our observable universe would not effect these new objects.

So between this extreme and a finite universe are all variations including multiverses of expanding bubbles. The reason these various speculations can contend is because of one simple observable fact; the universe is larger than our observable universe. How do we know this to be true, if it were not true then CMBR would begin to fade in one part of the sky, weakening over time. Our perspective on the universe is akin to a housekeeping ant living in the middle of an ant-mound, never to see what goes on outside the darkness of its own personal creation, it thinks his world is complete, until it tries to contemplate its worlds creation, then its horizons fade into oblivian.

[RainDreamer]

Until we get FTL, we might never know what is out there...

[lajoswinkler]

Until we get FTL, we might never know what is out there...

Saying "until we get FTL" is like saying "until we manage to draw a cubical circle". It won't happen. It's a property of our universe. We're stuck here.

[RainDreamer]

Who knows. We might meet trans-dimensional beings one day and learn how to go beyond the limit of our current universe, or some other implausible scenarios. Or we never will. It is a thought worth entertained though. At this point we have no way to know either way, so all we can do is have fun speculating.

[Nibb31]

I don't see the fun in speculating about tooth fairies or pink unicorns. This is on the same level.

[YNM]

Simple answer: get some telescope, free up a month, get observing.

Yeah, that's the only real way out.

--------

Long answer: I'll take points from OP

1. Laws of physics may not be consistent everywhere : Yeah ! Who said the whole thing must be simple ? In fact, fine structure constant have been sugggested to change in time, and as the constant is a product of many other constant (imagine having Planck, Gravitational, and Speed of Light in Vacuum constant in a single relation) it means that things may purposely change behavior from the past to the future - more extreme, laws might not be the same at all (like, gravity being an inverse cube than incerse square or so). But to prove so, you don't have anything ekse except careful ovservation. It is the reason that we need new CMB probes that can measure difference in temperature down to 10^(-7) K (currently it's -5 than -7).

2. Velocity between two extremely-distant points can be very extreme : Nobody said you can't have a velocity greater than c. The only restriction is matter wrt local spacetime, not two distant local spacetime.

3. Inflation : These things needs even more work (read : observation).

@ llanthas: A better view on Universe expansion would the the surface of the sphere (2D world), not the whole sphere. Or the circumference of a circle(1D world). No point in such case can see the difference, in their respective dimension. It is not recomended to imagine how these things happening in 3D space, even more so for curved spacetime cases, for all reason.

[RainDreamer]

I don't see the fun in speculating about tooth fairies or pink unicorns. This is on the same level.

Whaat. Am I weird for sometimes thinking about tooth fairies' economics then? Like, the exchange rate of a tooth to a currency, the variation between children of different part of the worlds and said currency, and thus a global exchange market for teeth and money? It is like fantasy currency trading!

But anyway, it is kind of a personal thing. I enjoy looking at things in wonder. It makes life interesting.

I wonder what we will see in the future, or what people will thought up.

[PB666]

Simple answer: get some telescope, free up a month, get observing.

Yeah, that's the only real way out.

--------

Long answer: I'll take points from OP

1. Laws of physics may not be consistent everywhere : Yeah ! Who said the whole thing must be simple ? In fact, fine structure constant have been sugggested to change in time, and as the constant is a product of many other constant (imagine having Planck, Gravitational, and Speed of Light in Vacuum constant in a single relation) it means that things may purposely change behavior from the past to the future - more extreme, laws might not be the same at all (like, gravity being an inverse cube than incerse square or so). But to prove so, you don't have anything ekse except careful ovservation. It is the reason that we need new CMB probes that can measure difference in temperature down to 10^(-7) K (currently it's -5 than -7).

And as a matter of point the dark energy that is supposed to permeate the universe is either dependent on near complete vacuum or a cosmological constant that we cannot measure locally. That means at least one of the fine structure constants is probably variable, how variable and the circumstances of which remain unknown. Gravitational constant of all of these is most likely a variant, even in the lab its hard to fix, the other constants like Plank's, C, Boltzmann's constant are rather unchanging. The problem is that during the transition from pre-inflation to inflation supposedly quantum gravity transitions to relativistic gravity, the first of which we have never been able to detect, the second of which may be resolved to 7 digits (I think securely 6). With regard to the first source of variation, it is very difficult here on earth to reduce all matter, all electromagnetism and all source of static fields, thus you have papers that argue that they think they have emptied enough space to make a valid reading, but the problem is without knowing the interactive nature of dark energy, we don't know what constrains it. When the universe was full of homogeneously dispersed matter inflation stopped (as far as we know) then around 7 billion years ago as much of the clustering of matter into dark matter strands and galaxies the universe begins to inflate again. Einsteins concept of a cosmological constant was sort of invalidated when Hubble showed that every 'point' in the visible universe was expanding away from every other point, but now that we see that this is inflating an inconstant cosmological 'constant' is gaining favor over the infiltration of energy into persistent quantum vacuum of deep space.

3. Inflation : These things needs even more work (read : observation).

We need better telescopes. The JWST will provide an important insights.

[Darnok]

Saying "until we get FTL" is like saying "until we manage to draw a cubical circle". It won't happen. It's a property of our universe. We're stuck here.

What property?

Just because someone wrote equation doesn't mean that equation defines how universe works. Person who build model of universe based on his knowledge and his interpretations of experiments could think in wrong way. It wouldn't be first time where science "works" in very narrow range, but if you try to apply that in wider range, it doesn't work like hypothesis predicted

Sadly science instead of going back and throw away wrong interpretation and equations make additions to them... and scientists say it is ok to make small "patch" to entirely wrong concept.

[PB666]

What property?

Just because someone wrote equation doesn't mean that equation defines how universe works. Person who build model of universe based on his knowledge and his interpretations of experiments could think in wrong way. It wouldn't be first time where science "works" in very narrow range, but if you try to apply that in wider range, it doesn't work like hypothesis predicted

Sadly science instead of going back and throw away wrong interpretation and equations make additions to them... and scientists say it is ok to make small "patch" to entirely wrong concept.

It might help us if we were very far from where we are at, but in the here and now most of the known physics varies extremely little (the only thing that I can think of is gravity varies in the 7th to 8th decimal place).

FTL is based on concepts in which practical application thereof is based on speculation that certain particles (exotic in normal-space time) one of those particles supposedly travels only above the speed of light, so that we beings that travel only below the speed of light would have difficulty interacting with it, if it existed. Of course if we were traveling above the speed of light we could interact with the fabled particle, but there again, if we could do that to begin with we would not need the particle.

Lets recapitulated

-Gravity only varies by a tiniest of amounts 6 magnitude greater than the other constants, but still small. We might have to travel 100 of millions of light years from earth to see larger differences if they exist

-The RF resonator does produce thrust but not efficiently and in the tiniest amounts, and there still could be a non-exotic explanation

-The differences that are being seen in Mass accelerators, not so much deviations but new unexplained territories are working now in the Terra-electron volt range, the types of accelerations required to deal with those particles are way more than humans can withstand.

-Dark energy - exists, but we don't have a handle on it, and it appears not to be a local phenomena, it appears to exist in space where nothing else exists and that excludes matter from manipulating it.

Basically all the variances of known physics are weak and on the fringe, how do we exploit these things? Its hard to fathom.

[vger]

I don't see the fun in speculating about tooth fairies or pink unicorns.

The "tooth fairy" rhetoric is REALLY getting old. Like, "I'm going to prove you're a sinner," level of old.

Saying "until we get FTL" is like saying "until we manage to draw a cubical circle". It won't happen. It's a property of our universe. We're stuck here.

Even at FTL, Warp 100, or whatever Ludicrous Speed, pretty sure our sun would poof before we got to the edge of the universe.

Edited October 6, 2015 by vger

[Darnok]

It might help us if we were very far from where we are at, but in the here and now most of the known physics varies extremely little (the only thing that I can think of is gravity varies in the 7th to 8th decimal place).

I see you don't get it... what is color of grass?

[Bill Phil]

Saying "until we get FTL" is like saying "until we manage to draw a cubical circle". It won't happen. It's a property of our universe. We're stuck here.

Exactly. A property of our universe. But who's to say it's the only one? A hyperspace like universe could exist. Could. But it would still take a ginormous amount of energy to enter it, if it exists.

It would still be convenient.

[PB666]

I see you don't get it... what is color of grass?

Very much depends the species how much _you_ have smoked.

- - - Updated - - -

The "tooth fairy" rhetoric is REALLY getting old. Like, "I'm going to prove you're a sinner," level of old.e.

Before the moderator jumps in and kills this thread i have to ask, why do the unicorns have to be pink, doesn't that discriminate against white and sky-blue unicorns,

Another on of the posts were i in advertantly forget the smiley face.

[Mitchz95]

Here we go again.

[Darnok]

Very much depends the species how much _you_ have smoked.

Wrong answer, we see grass as green plant. But did you ever wondered why?

[CptRichardson]

Answer: We have no way of knowing how to even properly ask the question at this time. To answer this question is so far beyond our capacity that we don't even have the words to describe our inadequacy at the present moment. Space is big. Unfathomably, unimaginably, inconceivably BIG.

[John FX]

Wrong answer, we see grass as green plant. But did you ever wondered why?

Because the plant absorbs red and blue light reflecting the remainder.

[Just Jim]

I don't know if that's an answerable question...

From what little I understand of physics, FTW engines or not, we're still confined to our universe. But some theories suggest there may be much more beyond our own universe, other dimensions or perhaps a multi-verse. How would you get there???

Seems to me, unless you have a TARDIS, you're never going to be able to find the edge of nothing....

[justidutch]

Perhaps we would be able to define "nothing" and therefore find out how to get there once we figure out how to divide something by zero. Or by building a NaN drive.

[Randazzo]

For all intents and purposes, we're still confined to a small percentage of our own planet. We have limited access and control over aquatic regions, but still don't know much about the depths of the oceans.

And though we've sent human beings to walk on the moon, that accomplishment provided largely intangible results. We can't send people there on the regular, and even if we could... then what? It's a desolate, lifeless rock.

The Universe is incomprehensible in terms of travel, and if we do accidentally figure out how to open a hole to somewhere else... be it somewhere else in space, or time, or another "dimension", it will likely be because we were building a better, more efficient way to murder each other en masse.

[vger]

And though we've sent human beings to walk on the moon, that accomplishment provided largely intangible results. We can't send people there on the regular, and even if we could... then what? It's a desolate, lifeless rock.

Trust me, if we can ever find a way to get people to the moon as easily as we ship people from one continent to another on a boat, the psychological impact alone would make it worth the trouble. Looking back at the blue orb, and all that the image entails. That's society's best opportunity to finally "get it."

...and playing football there would be fun too.

[Darnok]

Because the plant absorbs red and blue light reflecting the remainder.

You created two properties.

I can create two different properties/scenarios/hypothesis for this:

1. plants absorbs all light except green, they don't have to have ability to reflect, just all not absorbed light has to go somewhere

2. plants reflects only green light, all other colors are absorbed

It seems to be same thing, but it isn't, because in science you have to think what property studied object has, so you could create equation for your calculations.

It is important what you pick are you measuring reflection-property or absorbtion?

The colors that we see are really illusions, because it is the color of the object should determine the absorption capacity, or reflex is arbitrary. Same it is with every issue, in which we interpret and describe the universe or some object within the universe.

For many years, the geocentric system was the only and right model of universe, because an observer from the earth really see, the planets moving around him. But then someone got the idea that this concept is totally wrong and the property of planet Earth has changed. Now we calculate Earth movement, before we didn't.

Geocentric and heliocentric systems/models are two ways of perceiving reality, two different interpretation, and both can create many equations that will give correct results.

Of course science has rejected one of these models, and there is nothing wrong with that, were it not that scientists have forgotten that the old and misconceptions to be discarded and they should be looking for new ones.

Instead today, misconceptions are not discarded, they add the new field of physics (and not only) to only justify their accuracy in a wider range.

An example is Newton and his notion that the force that occurs between an apple and the Earth comes from the direct influence of the properties of one and the other at a distance. How does he prove that in his times? Why he has accepted only such a model?

Yet the second model that comes to my mind is one in which the force between objects is created by an environment where these objects are. And this model is simpler because it does not require the creation of additional property(mass) for objects apple and the Earth.

This come into my mind when I read @lajoswinkler "It's a property of our universe" do we really measure properties of universe or only our interpretations of those properties?

Edited October 6, 2015 by Darnok
using translator, sometimes creates mess

[PB666]

You created two properties.

This come into my mind when I read @lajoswinkler "It's a property of our universe" do we really measure properties of universe or only our interpretations of those properties?

First of the green plant analogy is a red herring argument. This has nothing to do with mundane midspectrum qualities of light.

That's why they create models. The models do not have to be absolutely perfect, but they do have to be better than previous explanations.

Granted the concept of a second is a subjective one, in theory we should use Planck's time. But if we just made a solar spectrograph on a log scale and reduced the label on the x-axis to invisible size you could not really tell the difference between a Planck time and sec based as long as the unit was frequency. The grid lines would differ in position. So the explanation given you suffices.

But the units we use are not going to affect the relationships. Planck's time, constant, C, etc will represent the same quantities when corrected for unit.

So your song and dance here has only attempted to obfuscate the problem. When we get down to fundamentals humans do not have the mastery of things we know exist, like creating forces like within a supernova. And like I said the variances in our here and now are tiny, so you can't get around these essentials without some major change or addition to the physics.

[problemecium]

Regarding the universe vs. the observable universe, something's been bugging me of late. How, specifically, do we know for sure that the universe is so much bigger than the observable portion, or bigger at all?

- You say in the OP that if the CMB were near the edge of the universe, a "hole" would appear from which the radiation would fade over time. Okay. Well we haven't been around nearly long enough to be able to measure any such change. Perhaps it is fading, but since we're basically looking at a freeze-frame, we can't tell. And coincidentally... there IS a mysterious dark patch in the CMB. I'm not going to jump to conclusions here, but it could be related.

- We keep building bigger and more sensitive telescopes, but we've never looked so far into the past that we see the primordial universe. Sure, we've spotted the CMB, and distant quasars appear younger, but where is the dense, super-distorted cloud of proto-galaxies we should be seeing out there at around 13.7 billion light-years? Rather, what we see are more and more fully-formed galaxies, then... nothing at all. This could mean that the universe is enormous and the light simply hasn't arrived yet, but there's little reason we shouldn't be able to detect the light from the beginning of the universe (again, we can see the CMB, but what about light from just after that?). And perhaps our telescopes just aren't sensitive enough yet, in which case we'll find out when we find out.

The fact that beyond the visible galaxies we see nothing suggests about as strongly, given Occam's Razor, that there aren't any more and we're looking at the edge.