Possibly stupid universe question
Discussion
slightly off topic Einstiens equations do not say you can't travel faster than the speed of light.
what they do say is as speed increases so does a particles mass, in such a way thet at the speed of light the particle would have infinate mass, which is impossible.
Therefore traveling at the speed of light is impossible.
But in theory particles (tachyons) can travel faster then light
what they do say is as speed increases so does a particles mass, in such a way thet at the speed of light the particle would have infinate mass, which is impossible.
Therefore traveling at the speed of light is impossible.
But in theory particles (tachyons) can travel faster then light
This is a really good question and got me thinking.
The only explanation I can think of based on my extremely limited knowledge and understanding is that when ‘new Space’ is created, this is treading on new territory so the theory of relativity we have is not violated because it’s not a vacuum of Space anymore, its expansion into ‘nothing’ so who knows how fast the particles could travel creating this new area.
I am not sure on the theories of this, whether quantum theory could be tied in to make a reasonable argument as to why the diameter of the Universe is some 4 times the diameter it should be based on it being 13.7bn years old.
I assume we know the size of the Universe or can give a good estimate based on the Cosmic Microwave Background and not from visible light. If this is the case then maybe light itself has only travelled so far as 13.7bn light years in all directions (roughly) thus not violating Einstein’s theory and the extra distance is literally a void with there being just microwaves at the very edge, expanding more quickly. So my theory would have it as the void between the edge of the Universe and visible light as ever expanding.
Or I could be talking complete b
ks. 
The only explanation I can think of based on my extremely limited knowledge and understanding is that when ‘new Space’ is created, this is treading on new territory so the theory of relativity we have is not violated because it’s not a vacuum of Space anymore, its expansion into ‘nothing’ so who knows how fast the particles could travel creating this new area.
I am not sure on the theories of this, whether quantum theory could be tied in to make a reasonable argument as to why the diameter of the Universe is some 4 times the diameter it should be based on it being 13.7bn years old.
I assume we know the size of the Universe or can give a good estimate based on the Cosmic Microwave Background and not from visible light. If this is the case then maybe light itself has only travelled so far as 13.7bn light years in all directions (roughly) thus not violating Einstein’s theory and the extra distance is literally a void with there being just microwaves at the very edge, expanding more quickly. So my theory would have it as the void between the edge of the Universe and visible light as ever expanding.
Or I could be talking complete b
ks. Russian Rocket said:
what they do say is as speed increases so does a particles mass, in such a way thet at the speed of light the particle would have infinate mass, which is impossible.
The concept as I heard it was that infinite mass requires infinite energy to accelerate it - and that is the impossible bit.Warp space I say!
The OP gave a diameter for the Universe of about 90 billion light years.
That should read, the "observable universe", because light from anything beyond just hasn't had time to get here yet. We don't know, we cannot know, we will never know what is beyond that, and any observer anywhere else in the universe will see a similar sized but different universe of that size, which may not include the Earth.
The problem of trying to express complex scientific ideas in words that the 'man in the street' can understand is a fallacy, as Feynman showed. That great explainer of science to the people was asked to explain magnetism, and said "I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
John
That should read, the "observable universe", because light from anything beyond just hasn't had time to get here yet. We don't know, we cannot know, we will never know what is beyond that, and any observer anywhere else in the universe will see a similar sized but different universe of that size, which may not include the Earth.
The problem of trying to express complex scientific ideas in words that the 'man in the street' can understand is a fallacy, as Feynman showed. That great explainer of science to the people was asked to explain magnetism, and said "I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
John
tapkaJohnD said:
The OP gave a diameter for the Universe of about 90 billion light years.
That should read, the "observable universe", because light from anything beyond just hasn't had time to get here yet. We don't know, we cannot know, we will never know what is beyond that, and any observer anywhere else in the universe will see a similar sized but different universe of that size, which may not include the Earth.
The problem of trying to express complex scientific ideas in words that the 'man in the street' can understand is a fallacy, as Feynman showed. That great explainer of science to the people was asked to explain magnetism, and said "I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
John
Spot on and that's the problem.That should read, the "observable universe", because light from anything beyond just hasn't had time to get here yet. We don't know, we cannot know, we will never know what is beyond that, and any observer anywhere else in the universe will see a similar sized but different universe of that size, which may not include the Earth.
The problem of trying to express complex scientific ideas in words that the 'man in the street' can understand is a fallacy, as Feynman showed. That great explainer of science to the people was asked to explain magnetism, and said "I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
John
Men and women devote their lives to study their chosen fields of expertise and then others with just a casual acquaintance of the subject request enlightenment.
If only that could be the case.
Rotaree said:
Getragdogleg said:
Eric Mc said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What is the universe expanding into?
Not a relevant question.It does not need to expand "into" anything.
so, if the universe is continually expanding, what would happen if you could, hypothetically, travel faster than the universe is expanding, and reach the edge.
what would it look like, and what would happen if you were to try and go past the edge?
and how, even the universe, go on forever? but how can it not go on forever? if it does go on infinitely, how? and if it doesnt, why?
i think ive confused my self and given myself a headache now
I dont really have any problem with 'nothingness' as i do not believe in god as the bible is about as credible as the proof of god as my men is proof of mr tickle.
i just cannot get my head around that there is an end of the universe, or if not, that it goes on forever.
if there is and end of the universe, whats past the 'end', an alternative universe that is shrinking as ours is getting bigger, and taking over the smaller one? or what?
i just cannot get my head around that there is an end of the universe, or if not, that it goes on forever.
if there is and end of the universe, whats past the 'end', an alternative universe that is shrinking as ours is getting bigger, and taking over the smaller one? or what?
Nothing!Slink said:
yeh, but how can there be nothing? like as in. is there is a giant wall stopping you from going further that the edge? or you just go from being to being nothing after you go past the edge?
Because there is no space. By space I don't mean the vacuum up there, I mean any dimensions, including the three we're most used to. There is no up/down, left/right, in/out. It is the true definition of nothing. Most people think of the Big Bang as the explosion of matter into space, so that if it were possible to take a spaceship back in time to the point of the Big Bang they could sit at a safe distance and watch the show. The truth is that the Big Bang was the creation of everything, including space and all the dimensions. You couldn't watch the Big Bang from a safe distance as there was no such thing as distance before it happened. The point in space in which you want to occupy to watch the Big Bang didn't exist. Everything - time, distance, matter, energy was all in the singularity.
Slink said:
yeh, but how can there be nothing? like as in. is there is a giant wall stopping you from going further that the edge? or you just go from being to being nothing after you go past the edge?
Maybe space is infinite, it just costs time to traverse it and so is defined by it. Or something
Slink said:
yeh, but how can there be nothing? like as in. is there is a giant wall stopping you from going further that the edge? or you just go from being to being nothing after you go past the edge?
Think of it like the old Asteroid game .. what happened when you went off the edge of the screen.NinjaPower said:
Eric Mc said:
As it expands, it creates its own space - and time.
My brain hurts!!A bacteria on a slide has no idea what a grain of sand is.
An ant has no idea what a mountain is.
A human cannot properly understand the size of the sun or the solar system, much less anything beyond that.
Our brains are built to deal with the scale at which we live our lives. We can cope with thins smaller or larger to a degree, by building our familiarity. But I struggle to believe that anyone (even at NASA) can properly COMPREHEND how big some stuff out there in space is. I'm sure they can tell me exactly how big it is in abolute or releative terms (e.g. Mars is x% of the size of Earth) but that's not the same as truly having a COMPREHENSION of what that means. Our brains are not built for it.
Slink said:
yeh, but how can there be nothing? like as in. is there is a giant wall stopping you from going further that the edge? or you just go from being to being nothing after you go past the edge?
If Space is even slightly curved - and I mean by as little as (say) 0.000001 of an inch for every zillion-billion miles - then there will be no such thing as an 'edge of the universe' as no matter which way you travel outwards from a given point you would always eventually return to the point you set out from - albeit gazillions of years later.It would be a bit like walking out from London trying to find the edge of the earth...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff