4 ms·
"Further out past the observable universe" pretty much doesn't matter (hah), by definition.
by jperras 3y ago
"Further out past the observable universe" pretty much doesn't matter (hah), by definition.
- dylan604 3y ago[flagged]
- CuriousCosmic 3y agoBy definition if we can observe it (either directly or indirectly via the effects on stuff we can directly observe), it's part of the observable universe. If it's outside the observable universe then by definition it has no observable effect. Until technology improves to expand the observable universe to a degree that we can observe it or it does something that allows us to observe it (which adds it to the observable universe), then it doesn't really matter to us. In other words: If it's not part of the observable universe, it doesn't matter to us because we can't possibly know anything about it. However as soon as we discover something about it, it becomes part of the observable universe and now we can care about it because we know of it.
- _Microft 3y agoNo, it does not depend on our technological capabilities. The observable universe [0] of a point is defined as the space from which it is theoretically possible that a signal can reach it. So: every point in space has its own observable universe and it is not dependent on any technological capabilities. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe Edit, excerpt from [0]: „The word observable in this sense does not refer to the capability of modern technology to detect light or other information from an object, or whether there is anything to be detected. It refers to the physical limit created by the speed of light itself.“
- meindnoch 3y agoLol, no. "Observable universe" is not a philosophical concept; it's a physical one with a precise definition: those parts of the universe that fell within our past light cone.
- bandyaboot 3y agoWhat you’re calling narcissistic is nothing more than taking as a given that an observer can’t go faster than the speed of light.
- xorbax 3y agoWe don't know the shape of the universe. There could be nothing further than what we observe. We, by definition, cannot actually know. The universe may simply wrap around itself. The universe may have finite real volume due to big bang inflation and it simply can't be approached Fact is, far enough in the future inflation will be such that our view is vastly smaller than it is now. Their universe will be smaller because there will be no way for them to access what inflation has put beyond light and causality.
- dotnet00 3y agoThey still don't matter from our point of view, since everything outside the hubble sphere is by definition completely causally disconnected from us due to moving away from us faster than light. The main value of these sorts of detections is towards probing the early ages of the universe and how quickly certain things formed, in which context, the idea of a larger black hole beyond the edge of the observable universe doesn't make much sense, since the edge of the observable universe is t=0 for the big bang (to be precise, the edge observable via photons is actually t=~370k years, the point where the universe cooled enough to be optically transparent, but theoretically we could look to t=~1 second if we could devise a way to detect relic neutrinos from the big bang).
- koheripbal 3y agoIt sort of does because it had an impact on the formation of our part of the universe in the beginning, sorry it is useful in understanding the formation of the universe