6 ms·

Is that verified? That would be a reasonable explanation

by badosu 6y ago

williamdclt 6y ago
I'm not any sort of competent in the matter, but AFAIK there's nothing that would suggest that the universe is not bigger than the observable universe
- tsegratis 6y ago
  Do we see the same distance into the past in all directions? Then we're the center, or prob more likely, universe stretches immeasurably beyond
  - undersuit 6y ago
    We're in the center of the observable universe, unless light travels at different speeds in different parts of the universe.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    We are very unlikely to be in the center of the universe, and all evidence points to the universe having no center. The observable universe is centered around the observer, by definition. This article explains it better than I can in a HN comment block: https://www.livescience.com/62547-what-is-center-of-universe.html https://www.livescience.com/62547-what-is-center-of-universe...
    - tsegratis 6y ago
      Thanks. Is red-shift average the same in all directions? If there were a big-bang, and we were at the edge, different parts would accelerate away from us at different speeds That would give a measurable center...?? Otherwise, I suppose universe is a sheet of elastic stretched everywhere equally -- I learnt stuff from the link, it suggests universe wraps like a balloon does in 2D, but with a higher dimension. So center is not visible. They conclude no center, but equally say no evidence for higher dimensions... Of course balloons have centers just need to express them in the right dimensions So I think they defeat their own argument?? (4D objects still have centers -- just expressed 4D) But anyway, was mainly trying to find if there is an infinity within reality; or just stupendous immeasurablility? -- That would be more crazy than being at the center, imho
      - cthalupa 6y ago
        >If there were a big-bang, and we were at the edge, different parts would accelerate away from us at different speeds You're operating on a very outdated understanding of what the big bang was - for half a century now we've understood that there was no single point at which the big bang occurred, so there's no center to the universe everything is spreading out from. The big bang happened everywhere at once, and space has continued expanding everywhere at once ever since. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-big-bang-happen-at-a-point https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-b... is a well written explanation, so I won't try to poorly rephrase it here.
        tsegratis 6y ago
        Thanks that was super helpful A 3D obj stretched everywhere equally -- I suppose this is the same as the 2D balloon -- as it is also stretched everywhere equally One says everywhere is equi-distant from the origin in a 4th dimension. The other also says everywhere equi-distant but from zero, but adds a topolgy with no edges A 3D topology with no edges ofcourse requires a 4th dimension though So I think these are really two ways of saying the same thing? -- In any case, it really helped answer some other Qs for me In a simplistic sense the differences in the Hubble constant, are of course a dimension. So adding dimensions as in string theory is a fancy way of explaining nothing. But I wondered... Is there a correlation between Hubble constant differences and 3D space? If so, it would (in my unremmitingly small brain) show an interaction with dark energy a.k.a. this 4th dimension A clearer way to say that: the skin of the balloon has a thickness, and differences in the Hubble constant are measuring that thickness -- Your answer was awesome and super helpful -- Can you do it a second time? :)
        northern-lights 6y ago
        Your questions are answered at: 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPStj2ZuXug&t https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPStj2ZuXug&t 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSTTFS8Uco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSTTFS8Uco And more such videos at PBS SpaceTime. A fair warning though that that is a rabbit hole and likely to consume a lot of your hours/days to get through.
waheoo 6y ago
What do you mean verified? Do you think we're in the center of it?
- badosu 6y ago
  We don't need to be in the center of the universe for that, just less than a certain distance from the edge.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    Well if the furthest stuff we can see all happens to be the same distance away from us, that would mean the universe is larger than the observable, unless were in the center, which, as history shows, is a bad assumption to make.

Is that verified? That would be a reasonable explanation

by badosu 6y ago

Is that verified? That would be a reasonable explanation

I'm not any sort of competent in the matter, but AFAIK there's nothing that would suggest that the universe is not bigger than the observable universe

tsegratis 6y ago
Do we see the same distance into the past in all directions? Then we're the center, or prob more likely, universe stretches immeasurably beyond
- undersuit 6y ago
  We're in the center of the observable universe, unless light travels at different speeds in different parts of the universe.
- Balgair 6y ago
  We are very unlikely to be in the center of the universe, and all evidence points to the universe having no center. The observable universe is centered around the observer, by definition. This article explains it better than I can in a HN comment block: https://www.livescience.com/62547-what-is-center-of-universe.html https://www.livescience.com/62547-what-is-center-of-universe...
  - tsegratis 6y ago
    Thanks. Is red-shift average the same in all directions? If there were a big-bang, and we were at the edge, different parts would accelerate away from us at different speeds That would give a measurable center...?? Otherwise, I suppose universe is a sheet of elastic stretched everywhere equally -- I learnt stuff from the link, it suggests universe wraps like a balloon does in 2D, but with a higher dimension. So center is not visible. They conclude no center, but equally say no evidence for higher dimensions... Of course balloons have centers just need to express them in the right dimensions So I think they defeat their own argument?? (4D objects still have centers -- just expressed 4D) But anyway, was mainly trying to find if there is an infinity within reality; or just stupendous immeasurablility? -- That would be more crazy than being at the center, imho
    - cthalupa 6y ago
      >If there were a big-bang, and we were at the edge, different parts would accelerate away from us at different speeds You're operating on a very outdated understanding of what the big bang was - for half a century now we've understood that there was no single point at which the big bang occurred, so there's no center to the universe everything is spreading out from. The big bang happened everywhere at once, and space has continued expanding everywhere at once ever since. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-big-bang-happen-at-a-point https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-b... is a well written explanation, so I won't try to poorly rephrase it here.
      - tsegratis 6y ago
        Thanks that was super helpful A 3D obj stretched everywhere equally -- I suppose this is the same as the 2D balloon -- as it is also stretched everywhere equally One says everywhere is equi-distant from the origin in a 4th dimension. The other also says everywhere equi-distant but from zero, but adds a topolgy with no edges A 3D topology with no edges ofcourse requires a 4th dimension though So I think these are really two ways of saying the same thing? -- In any case, it really helped answer some other Qs for me In a simplistic sense the differences in the Hubble constant, are of course a dimension. So adding dimensions as in string theory is a fancy way of explaining nothing. But I wondered... Is there a correlation between Hubble constant differences and 3D space? If so, it would (in my unremmitingly small brain) show an interaction with dark energy a.k.a. this 4th dimension A clearer way to say that: the skin of the balloon has a thickness, and differences in the Hubble constant are measuring that thickness -- Your answer was awesome and super helpful -- Can you do it a second time? :)
        northern-lights 6y ago
        Your questions are answered at: 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPStj2ZuXug&t https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPStj2ZuXug&t 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSTTFS8Uco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSTTFS8Uco And more such videos at PBS SpaceTime. A fair warning though that that is a rabbit hole and likely to consume a lot of your hours/days to get through.

waheoo 6y ago

What do you mean verified? Do you think we're in the center of it?

badosu 6y ago
We don't need to be in the center of the universe for that, just less than a certain distance from the edge.
- waheoo 6y ago
  Well if the furthest stuff we can see all happens to be the same distance away from us, that would mean the universe is larger than the observable, unless were in the center, which, as history shows, is a bad assumption to make.