Despite the huge number of channels on astronomical, astrophysical and cosmological topics, the problem of the boundaries of the observable universe, i.e. the cosmological horizon, is relatively rarely discussed. Which is all the more strange is that this problem really shows the huge scale of the Universe and our cognitive limitations. Thank you for your wonderful presentation of this fascinating topic. Dr Maggie, I really like your style, keep it up 😉
sound is a series of pressure waves, we have measured such with tech independent of whether or not a human was there or capable of hearing it. The universe as we can see it exists only in the past so we are ignorant of what is going on now.
there is no sound in the universe - the "noise" is created in your brain, and even there it's a simulation, "noise" doesn't exist. as you say it is compression of a medium that we convert, in a brain.
@@HarryNicNicholas who said anything about sound being anywhere but in an environment like here on earth? In any case all you are doing is needlessly complicating the topic with that comment of yours. We are not the only species to rely on sound for survival, for communication. Sound is a particular section of the vast array of pressure wave series.
I’ve never heard that transdimensional analogy before, the bit about going up from a 2d spherical surface and then the higher-dimensional equivalent. Very clarifying! I’m gonna save this video for that part.
Actually observing Saturn above Venus for the first and last time on the 23rd with my daughter was the most awe inspiring for us. Don't expect to be around when it occurs again in 29.46 years.
That's something I wonder about a lot. It's a really interesting thing to think about and speculate about even if there's no way to ever know for sure.
100,000% but the majority of space scientists will tell you it’s either useless or only theories that we can come up with are real even though they’d be wildly incomplete
I'd have liked to see some actual reference to AdS and AdS/CFT. (The terms, people. Kudos for displaying aspects of the theory.) Juan and Lenny are doing great work there, and folks can grok the actual terms and people I'd think. The recent work from RAS and Oxford accounting for temporal dilation is also eye opening. (Edit: I just saw the video from 2 weeks ago. Nice!) My understanding is the TL;DR is "oh, perhaps not expanding, perhaps paths are dilating", but I only looked briefly tbh.
Youre right, sorry! and you're spot on about Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind's contributions being foundational in this field, thanks for the comment :-)
What will really blow your mind is when you realize there's no limit to how much you can divide space. Inside the smallest known subatomic particle there is enough space to fit a relatively small and yet complete version of our entire observable universe. All the subatomic particles within those lower dimensions likewise can contain their own dimensional reality within. But it would have to be the smallest known observable thing that we can never really see inside of. That is the nature of infinite. There is no limit to how large or how small.
@@stoobydootoo4098 The only limit is what we can observe and the limits of this scalar dimension. There may be infinite smaller dimensions and infinite larger dimensions. There may be a limit to the size of a universe for example. That size would be equivalent to the smallest sub-atomic particle. Or potentially even smaller particles that constitute those particles we haven't discovered yet. There could be a lot of relative variability and dynamic oscillation because velocity and relative time would also need to scale proportionally. We do see essentially static noise at the smallest scale. Static noise could be a whole series of parallel universes exploding and imploding. AKA light or dark. If there is a limit to our universe it would be pure light from the outside. One thing is for certain. There is no limit to how large or how small space can be. You can divide by infinite and never reach zero. Infinite fractions.
@stoobydootoo4098 is correct, the smallest thing is the planck length. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle implies trying to measure something at scales smaller than the Planck length requires so much energy that you'd create a black hole, making measurement impossible.
@@SpaceMog That's oddly specific! Did you know that any star larger than 485.34 solar masses is dark? I don't know exactly at what point the star would become a black hole however. Given that the escape velocity at the surface of our sun is 617 700 m/s and the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. If our sun is one solar mass. Then, 299 792 458/617 700 = 485.337 solar masses would have an escape velocity equivalent to the speed of light. Theoretically the largest star in terms of solar masses is BAT99-98 at 226 solar masses. What doesn't make sense is that theoretical stellar black holes are only 4 - 15 solar masses. While intermediate black holes are 100 - 10 000 solar masses and super massive black holes like those at the center of galaxies are millions or billions of solar masses. How are they not emitting light if the mass is too small to trap light?
That's right! And *the same goes for the palm of your hand.* If You're holding the palm of your hand 30 CM from your eyes, You do *not* see it as it is now - but _just_ as it had been one nanosecond ago. 😃
Good morning 🌅, or it was , 😂, So where did the Big Bang 💥 happen, 🌅, not in time 🕰️, is it the bang that is causing the universe to still expanded , ? . We are only in how universe, as there is many more, so if you’re saying that it is getting bigger, where is the starting point?, How do we know when we get there? , And of course the big question what was before the Big Bang. And will it or could it happen again? , I live in the Rural region of France Correze, I sometimes go outside at night 2- 3 o’clock in the morning, 🌅, I look up at the sky thinking what has happened where are we going?, What is out there?, and we are just a piece of dust and then it’s all over., and time it’s only infinite to a person, and so is time,
Timescape hypothesis- Certain wavelengths beyond red shift are no longer detectable in those distances. Quasars and fully formed galaxies could've coexisted and Big Bang just might be an optical illusion due to severe curvature of space and extreme time dilation pointing to, if we could see further, we would see pre Big Bang was more of the same of our universe. Timescape hypothesis
The universe doesn't need an edge, as you mention, just like the 2d surface on a sphere. Whilst the observable universe has a 'size' as observed from our position; Having an edge to the universe would add more complication, where there's no necessity for it.
@@SpaceMog😁 Ok, that's slightly more difficult than me just typing a sentence stating my current beliefs (yeah, and it's not very scientific of me 🤔); It just negates the issue of having something else beyond an edge (not the observable bit but beyond). If it were similar to a 3D shape just getting bigger with an edge, but with nothing or something (but not spacetime) beyond this edge, then it wouldn't have any spacial or time dimension beyond that edge, and that would make it pretty much the same as a single point. So that would only make sense if it was a like a loop (similar to the 2D Earth's surface, a 2D bubble or a 1D ring ...or 3D+T spacetime in a loop (a bit more difficult to visualize ) etc, with the universe being everything and with no edge and no beyond. Plus in the observable bit, you can look in any direction to see the CMB (with the right gear of course) and infer the point of the Big Bang, which is a single point that appears everywhere, and we're all, from our perspective, at the centre of the universe, again another single point. All of the observable universe is between these two points. The observable bit is just a restriction from our viewpoint ...but it still seems like a loop to me. I'm pretty sure if I've not explained that very well and I still haven't proved anything =¬).
I expect the universe is infinite in extent, rather than inwardly curved and therefore finite. Nothing so far discovered has disproven that, and space over large distance is totally flat to the limits of our ability to measure it. P.S. Just discovered you and subscribed. Excellent presentation.
Sound is the pressure wave of an event travelling through a medium like air or water, so yes, the tree will still make sound even if there's no one to hear it. But I always feel that question is more arrogant philosophical concern like the idea that the Earth was centre of the universe, that was corrected by the Copernican principle of we are not special or unique. Unless you're talking about the double slit experiment and quantum entanglement. That still makes my brain hurt...
It depends on the definition of sound. Initially this saying came when the definition is our perception of air vibrations but physics interpretation is the wave itself so you are a right, its more philosophical, but i think it ties to the quantum in modern day too :-)
Fascinating video, Maggie. Always boggles my mind to think the universe could be infinite yet with a finite beginning (est.13.8b yrs old) 🤯- if the universe is a bubble, what’s outside the bubble? 🫣🥵definitely feel we’re either in a simulation or multi dimensional construct. 😅
Gravity weakens with distance, but there’s no defined point where gravity ends.and every object with mass exerts some gravitational pull, and the universe itself has mass. so imagine it gravity value.
interesting thought, stars start to drop off at the edge of a galaxy, galaxies drop off at the edge of clusters, if there are multiple universes, do they drop off too? theres no indication of it at the scales we observe
This is incorrect. Gravity still travels at the speed of light. Anything beyond the observable universe is traveling away from us faster than the speed of light, so the gravity from those objects can never reach us. The cosmic horizon at the edge of the observable universe cuts off even gravity.
antonio padilla in conversation with sean carroll proposed the idea that even if the cosmos (what we can't see) were finite, that it is so vast that you could travel for a very long distance and eventually you would bump into another milky way galaxy, that there doesn't need to be an infinite number of OTHER universes, just that our (entire) universe is so big it runs out of variants and you will get duplication.
If you could move the JWST, in any direction, halfway from here to the edge of our observable universe, it would show you the same view that we see from here, and our Milky Way galaxy would appear to be at the far-edge of that observable universe. But, the fact is that like two Venn-diagram intersecting spheres, your known universe would share a part of our known universe. The rest of both universes would be unknown to the other! The earth is in the center of the bubble of our known universe which appears the same to us regardless of the direction in which we look. New data from the JWST confirms large galaxies existing near the edge of our universe, where they should not be according to the big bang origin theory. Our known universe contains billions and billions of galaxies, which each contain billions and billions of stars, each of which is home to a multitude of planets and moons in differing zones of distance from those stars. The probability of many of those worlds having conditions similar to those here is undeniable. The past is behind the "now plank-length-moment" and is set in stone, unalterable, and the future is yet to be written and is certainly not determined. We exist in a place where we CAN exist and that's all there is to it! Yes, Space, time and speed will alter conscious observers perceptions of reality, but not what happened in that tick of the cosmic clock. It would not matter if you could travel at warp speeds, 10, 100 or 1000 times the speed of light, you can never go backwards in time with respect to Newton's cosmic clock. That is to say that you can never leave a place and return to it before you left it.
oh boy are you saying it only is rendered as someone observes it? was it there before the observations or only because of the observations just made... like video game modelling.
As an acoustics engineer, a sound is definitely a sound if noone hears it. The vibration the air existed so the sound waves exist. Once the sound has entered the ears it is no longer a sound, it is now an electrical signal representing the sound
If our descendants live to the time when the only stars in the sky are from our own galaxy cluster, how could we ever prove to them that these other stars ever existed? It’s just strange that there are things we know to be true now but that- with enough generations removed- there can start to be reasonable doubt and our theories could be dismissed as ancient superstition.
Hopefully we will still have books and our data logging them. Just like we know the crab nebula was once a supernova in 1054 AD, it was so bright that it could be seen during the day, and thanks to the chinese drawings we know of this :-)
..”string theory describes”..multiple Universes.. interacting with our own.. would you be able to go into that a little? Time, is a constant between them, or does symmetry equate to minimal divergence at dim.0.1 ?
all this reminds me a scene of the movie " fantastic voyage " (1966) where the incredible complexity of the human body itself seems like some kind of universe with terrifying creatures ( antibodies, white blood cells...). what if we were living...in a living being ? nice video.
A falling tree causes a pressure wave which vibrates the air which is picked up by tiny hairs in the ear which send electronic signals to the brain which translates these as "sound" within one's brain.
"In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid." So yes, a tree makes a noise even if nothing with hearing is around to hear it. Also the egg came first. You're welcome.
I coded an cosmogenesis sim by accident once. derivative of an information substrate agnostic abiogenesis model. It seemed to imply universes are due non quantum quasi-inflationary information dynamics, which generate QM like macro and micro subspace topologies sandwiched between two more primordial/classical information phases that looked a bit like dark matter/energy. Curiously the two phases had differing temporal characteristics. These differing temporal characteristics at the boundary blended together like gravity blending time into space. Anyways monte carlo tested various things, finding the sim seemed to suggest a naïve GUT dimensionless information coupling ratio of ~1/24 was the optimum rate for initiating inflationary events in statistically gaussian patches of the grander pre-physical information construct. Other non uniform patches of of information outside universes alternatively seemed to imply scope for non biologic life like dynamics far grander and complex than mere finitely bounded universes, if generalization of the original abiogenesis axioms was meaningful...
I'm not sure I agree with the framing of this question. The horizon on Earth is a lot different than the horizon of the observable universe. On Earth, you can't see over the horizon, but you can move along the surface of Earth to a position where you can see what was over the horizon from a different location. You can't do that in the universe. The observable universe is different because the horizon isn't just inconvenient, it is ironclad and impossible to subvert. It felt like there is a subtle implication that maybe with future science, we'll one day find the answer to what is outside the observable universe, but this is exceedingly doubtful, just as doubtful as someone one day building a perpetual motion machine. It breaks the fundamental laws of physics for us to ever observe or interact with anything beyond the cosmic horizon. So going back to how the video started, if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, maybe there are other ways to trace the falling of that tree. Maybe the sound wave has a ripple effect that produces a measurable interaction with a nearby person. But if a star explodes beyond the cosmic horizon, that can't happen. We are causally separated from it, and nothing can ever pass that information from beyond the horizon to us. That's why I don't think anything beyond the observable universe is "real". We are causally disconnected from it, and unless the last 80 years or so of physics is all wrong, that will never change. As far as higher dimensional travel goes, that's all String Theory which, after decades really doesn't have any observational evidence to back it up. I'm not buying it. Seems more like something mathematical that a subset of physicists use to keep their jobs at universities. Anyway, I don't think "what is beyond the observable universe?" is going to be something we seriously research or try to solve. It's outside of reality and always will be. It is not an answerable question.
Imagine the furthest known galaxy we observe, JADES-GS-z14-0. Well, on there there's a civilisation that have built themselves a space telescope. And they've just observed their furthest galaxy. They call it mILKy-w4y. And someone is mulling over the answer to what is outside the observable universe. Now, look in the opposite direction out to a distance of 46 billion light years. That's their answer.
@@Captain-Cardboard Ok, but that doesn't change anything. We don't have any of the information that they do, in fact, we are seeing their home galaxy probably before their star even formed. In fact, the light from their star will probably never even reach us, because by the time it ignites, they'll pass the horizon for us. There's no way we'll ever be able to know they exist, much less get information about what they see. We are so disconnected from them causally that they are effectively not even real.
Pais was wise to say “ The 20th C physicist’s do not claim to I have a definitive answer for this” but ultimately, he was very wrong because the vast majority of space scientists will still absolutely try to convince you that they know the answers well before they ever come to any sort of humble realistic, conclusion that they don’t. Hence the dogma in this field still.
Hi dr. Maggie liue I think like we know the speed of light which 3 into 10 power -11 km/s it is travelling in infinite speed and universe is expanding to travel across universe we need to travel 99.9999999% of speed of light across universe 😊. We need to build a spaceship or satellite which can travel in speed of light and sends us the data in fraction of seconds 😊.
From my understanding that our cosmic horizon is running away from us faster than speed of light, a spaceship traveling at 99.999... light speed will not ever reach a point to give us more than a little additional information. As well, subject to time dilation, a finite universe will end in minutes of the spaceships clock and the collision of the spaceship with perfect symmetry, might be the spark for the next Big Bang.) Spaceship also might achieve critical mass and collapse into a black hole. This is why minds like yours are perfect for exploring GR science.
Even if you sent a probe out at slightly slower than c, it can't transmit the data back to us any faster than c. We can't even get data back from the moon in a fraction of a second. There's no way to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
I would suspect the cooler space is or becomes the more we could expect space to take on physical properties. Enough to shape energy to the reality we observe.
I wonder what the elasticity of space-time is? It's not made of rubber, but, it's made of ... something, and that something is expanding. That something is curved, stretched, warped, and pinched by bodies like planets, stellar masses, neutron stars, black holes, white holes, galaxies, and ... everything that has mass, or, even perhaps negative mass if that can even exist. Is there a limit to that something that space-time, or the fabric of the universe is made of can be pinched, pulled, stretched, warped, and/or stretched? How could that be tested? Could the science fiction concept of "tearing" or "poking" a hole in the fabric of the universe be a thing? Have we observed a wormhole, even a microscopic one created in a particle accelerator? What would a "tear" in the fabric of spacetime look like or how would that even function? Is dark matter or dark whatever an illusion, or artifact of how space time is pinched, stretched, and variable everywhere with time running slower in some areas, and time running faster in other areas? If you go in a straight line to anywhere in any direction, you're going to have "slower" time the closer you are to extremely massive bodies, and then "faster" time the further you're out of a gravity well. It makes the universe look a bit like a skate-park. In short distances of of "only" a few light years, that landscape probably wouldn't have much of an impact, but, over time, and distance, all those hills and valleys, do they average out?
I still like to think of the Universe as a combination of an octahedron/cube framework within a sphere of expanding waves. No proof of that obviously, just like the way it progresses when mapped (follows a simple square root pattern forming filaments with particle clusters and voids) Plus it's really simple to draw, which is perfect for me. As an aside, the same framework might actually explain how gravity works too, no need for dark energy/matter or gravitons. So goes my theory anyway... Enjoy
@SpaceMog It's an interesting framework, can be used for orthographic/perspective projection depending on the location of the observer. Using it as a model for designing a graphics engine
More universe. Our observable universe is a bubble simply because our visual limit is the same in all directions. The verse is effectively infinite, as light and mass are equally invested, which causes a singularity that progresses near-vertical on the graph. Even the great attractor could just be the center of an ultragalaxy comprising billions or trillions of galaxies, and there could be endless ultragalaxies. Both sides scale out forever, reviewing one another and swapping light (Vishnu) and mass (Shiva) to maintain balance and eventry (Brahma), or eventual symmetry. 😮❤😊
Astronomers get their interpretations mixed up between seeing distant galaxies and proper motion due to the expansion of space. Our observations are limited to the speed of light, age of the universe, evolution of stars, galaxies, distances involved and Einstein's look-back time. According to theory, light travels through the vacuum of space at a constant. Light travels through space at the same rate if space is expanding or if it's not expanding. It should then take light information longer to travel 13.8 billion light years if space has been expanding exponentially for 13.8 billion years. Light information has a further distance to travel. Thus explaining the shift in the wavelength of light. It's not tired light because light travels at a constant. The light information at that distance, according to theory should be way younger than we're measuring. When we take into account Einstein's look-back time, age of the universe, distance and the evolution of stars and galaxies, then the edge of the observable universe would be a maximum light distance of only 12.7 billion light years away. This is because a galaxy in order to be visible at that distance would have to be at least a billion years old after the big bang for it's light to be measured. Dim diffuse galaxies further than 12.7 billion light years away would be too dim and diffuse. What did the JWST find at the edge of the observable universe? It discovered old, not young but old, fully mature, bright galaxies, some were up to 100 times larger than our own Milky Way but at a light distance further than 13.5 billion light years away. Even the ground based Subaru telescope discovered galaxy HD1 13.5 billion light years away. IMPOSSIBLE according to theory. Then in 2023 after the JADES survey, astronomers discovered even older, larger galaxies further than 14 billion light years away. Astronomers began calling them Universe Breakers because they broke all the rules! So, where did astronomers with PhD's go astray with their interpretations, for the JWST proved several cosmological predictions wrong? I knew the interpretations were construed before the JWST was launched in 2021. I even came up with a solution. I published the paperback book *SECRET UNIVERSE : GRAVITY BY RON KEMP* September 27, 2021, 3 months before the JWST was launched. On page 48 I wrote quote, "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." And that's exactly what the telescope found causing such a stir among expert scientists today. Thus far scientists have postulated on an older universe, which would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. They've postulated on a dark matter big bang occurring after the first big bang. They've postulated on multiple universes. They've postulated on cyclical universes of big bangs and big crunches. They've postulated on tired light. They've postulated on miniature baby bubble universes colliding with ours. Yet none of these postulates can fully explain the observations without contradicting the laws of physics, theories of gravity, big bang, cosmic inflation, dark ages, reionization, dark matter, Hubble constant or the LCDM model. It's the reason why astronomers and astrophysicists are grasping for straws to come up with a reasonable explanation for old, massive galaxies found further than a light distance of 14 billion light years away. I knew that's what the JWST would discover. In 2010 I tried to tell NASA employees on their space forum under the thread, Ask An Astronomer how telescopes cannot look back in time and how gravity has a positive push and negative pull reaction to matter based on the amount of energy the large bodies produce in their cores. They mocked me. Stars and galaxies spewing million mile per hour solar winds behave differently than planets and moons. I was the only person to accurately predicted what the JWST would find before the telescope was launched. I must be right. In order to understand, scientists have to put all their preconceived notions and assumptions aside and read my book completely. What I wrote goes against everything we were taught about cosmology. Thus why we have to go into the solution with a fresh start, different perspective. Don't assume any of the theories are correct, especially the age of the universe, big bang, cosmic inflation and more. These postulates are all assumptions based on our interpretations when observing the universe. Theories are the best guesses to explain observations. Theories then can be either confirmed or refuted through further observations. And right now, several theories were shown to be wrong with the CEERS and JADES surveys by the JWST.
Yes. Ignore Pluto, though. That's small fry. Think of the furthest galaxy we observe. To an astronomer there WE are the furthest galaxy THEY observe. And by turning round and looking in the opposite direction we can see another 46 billion light years past the edge of their observable universe.
This is something I have contemplated for quite a while now, In our mundane experience on this planet everything seems to be finite. Therefore how do we even conceive of the infinite? Even with the concept of a multiverse, i.e. having bubble like structures of multiple universes within......what is beyond that then?
I suspect that, this universe is either infinite, or, just like galaxies are multiple galactic distances apart, so too, multiple universes exist, and they are multiple universal distances apart
What's sad to me, is that people from 2000 years ago will never know the beauty that we today have seen Is 93 billion light years, not enough for all the beauty? The reality that we will never TOUCH the distances that we can see, saddens me
I’ve pondered this question myself in my younger years, now in my older years I’ve come up with an answer. Does it really matter? It won’t change anything or our perception of it.
10. The Universe is divided into seven units, i.e. rings or belts that, entirely together, form the whole Universe, and all of these rings are rotating against each other and have different diameters and an ovoid shape. 11. These seven rings, which we call belts, are the following: 12. i. Central Core, ii. Ur-Core Belt, iii. Ur-Space Belt, iv. Solid-state Matter Universe Belt, v. Transformation Belt, vi. Creation Belt, and vii. Displacement Belt
@@SpaceMog This is the writing of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier Odd to see a Ph.D liking such woo. Billy's antisemitism is icing, and likely relates to why the sprout we're commenting under lapped it up.
I haven't even got past the idea that there is something at all. My little brain is stuck in a cause and effect loop. How did it all begin? And from what and from where?
@SpaceMog I belive the big bang did not start everything maybe it's somethink that's been going on like time and space being part of each other if that makes any sense lol
great video,mind is blown, thanks doubt we will ever know the truth, simply because we are part of the universe trying to observe the universe, our consciousness is too limited
Amazing... Now I cannot but wonder, if we basically live on a 2D surface of the Earth, and the easiest way to realize its shape and size was to go up - into the third spatial dimension - is it possible then that the only way to comprehend the size and shape of the universe (and what's beyond) is only if you go into the fourth dimension? And even if that would be possible, wouldn't there be another, bigger universe, then, which would be easiest seen only if you go into the fifth dimension? I mean, mathematically all those dimensions are possible, those shapes do exist, but it's incredibly hard to imagine how could you even reach those and whether it ever ends...
One can not define the observable universe in a universe that can not be definitively defined. The questions "What is 5% of infinite space" and "what is 5% of I don’t know" are equally absurd.
@ Because that is the result of a falling tree. The air is still there in our absence and the air molecules are still being vibrated by the vibrations caused by the falling tree. Your question is a philosophical question, not a scientific question. It’s the same with the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. The philosophical view is that the cat can be considered both alive and dead because until we look in the box we don’t know which. However, in real life the cat is most certainly either alive OR dead and Schrödinger wasn’t suggesting otherwise. TL;DR: We know how sound waves are created so we know that the tree falling makes sound.
i think that the universe might just be a single atom of something much bigger... and the big bang is just the split of the nucleus so, the galaxies and solar systems and planets are just the protons and neutrons and electrons bursting apart... if you think about it... the atom is arranged like a solar system that is arranged like a galaxy that is probably arranged like the universe... so why shouldn't it just be part of something bigger? by arranged... i mean that there is a core and a force that keeps the surrounding elements within the boundaries of the core. i have no idea if that made any sense... haha 🤯🤣
You're absolutely right, the similarities in structure are striking. It's actually a concept that's been explored in various forms, sometimes called the "fractal universe" theory, but we don't have scientific evidence to support the idea. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
er, silly question. would it be silly to say "almost infinite"? that is, not actually infinite, but pretty close? cos i wonder if - could the universe be finite, but so big that you could (still) not reach that boundary? an infinite number minus one, sorta thing? cos i just wonder if the universe just happens to be finite and therefore not boggling, but still so big you couldn't actually define it's size (cos surely if it is finite you could say "it's X miles wide" which seems a bit squiffy for a universe).
The word infinite is just a concept we have to express by negation. in (not) finite (limited). So there really isn't an "infinity -1" because infinity really isn't a number, its a concept of the idea that there's no limit to the scope. There's sizes that are inexpressible by mathematical notation, which are still finite and there's just "mindbogglingly huge" which is bigger than humans can realistically comprehend, but that can still be finite. So the universe outside of the observable universe could be a graham's number times bigger than the observable universe, which is completely incomprehensible, but that would still be smaller than infinite... as they say, "you could fit an infinite number of them in an infinite space", which is sort of tautological to the point of being meaningless.
By definition the universe is infinite, because every "thing" is in-finite. Atoms are not dots, they are made up of quantum bits that have no finite definition, because waves have no finite definition. Infinity goes in both, no ALL directions. In fact, direction, itself is just a construct imposed upon space-time by our limited perception.
If the universe is like the Earth analogy, then if a photon travels in a straight line for trillions of light years, would someday get back to the same spot it was emitted? If this could happen, could someone be able to see their own past? (supposing that the expansion of the universe is still slow enough to allow it)
If the universe was small, and of finite size and unbounded; yes, you could see the back of your head as light looped around. However, the universe is expanding and the horizon prevents this from ever happening. Astronomers are pretty confident that the universe is bigger than the observable universe, or at least that the observable universe doesn't have loops like that or otherwise we'd be able to see some distant galaxies from two different angles. So far all surveys have failed to find anything like this, so it probably isn't a thing.
6;39 We only calls these data constants and laws because our early explanations of the Universe. They implied first a God creating a fixed wirld, second a ruler fixing laws (moral and physical). Has it been proven that constants aren't variables, or is it assumed? Are physical laws not habbits ? How do you know? Listen to Rupert Sheldrake for more...
There's nothing, because the edge of the universe is the event horizon of spacetime, if you were to be at the edge, you would be in the remnants of the beginning. That's how I see it, anyway.
"What beyond the Observable Universe?"......The Unobservable universe......yeah.....😅. It's just the limit of our shared consciousness It's as far as our Thalamus can reach. Another 10,0oo more years of scientists dropping good LSD and we will expand this boundary.
Hello Dr Maggie, as others have said, the tree falling would certainly create pressure waves. But then it depends on your definition of 'sound' or 'noise' of course. In Quantum theory atomic scale things can be more than one mutually exclusive thing simultaneously until an observation is made. Seems crazy, but 100 years have gone past and it all seems to work within scope. Maybe the assumption that the laws of Physics must be the same for both big and small objects simultaneously is itself wrong. Two laws, depending on scale, but one universe......???? 😉 Best wishes as always from New Zealand.
No I don't think sound matters if only someone hears it. I think trees still exists even if people don't hear them.. It could be an obvious answer.Couldnt it ? The question is asked because some person thought up the question, Nothing more maybe?
The likeliest thing would be, of course, to assume the same thing goes on and on. There is nothing special about this horizon as we perceive it, since there is nothing special about us. An Astronomer from Andromeda shall see a slightly different horizon; an Astronomer from a Galaxy, say, three billion light years away from us shall see something very different. For Astronomers living 46 billion light years away from us, *they* would naturally be at the center of the Universe, with us at the edge - and, of course, looking at our direction, they will only get to see the earliest seedlings of our Galaxy, as it was only starting to form... and their horizon, of course, shall stretch 46 billion light years away from them, at all directions. To believe, that we are the actual center of everything, and there is nothing else beyond what *we* are able to see, is just as *ridiculous* as assuming that, if from my Home I am only able to see a mountain and a field, but no other houses, then no other houses exist anywhere, at all. 😂 This is *_beyond_* egocentric, this is fully fledged solipsistic LOL Oh, and if a Tree falls anywhere, _someone_ most certainly saw it... lots of persons most certainly saw it. Since *not only **_humans_** have eyes...* 😃
More space. Other big bang Universes. For infinity in every direction. That is until the fuses in the human brain can't handle the giga-normity. It doesn't end because it cannot end, whatever contains it is the start of more space. Imagine being given the capacity to be a part of it, to explore, to make use of it: then spending all your energy squabbling over ugly bits of real estate. Trapped in the Drake Equation like little mindless muppets.
Wouldn't our earth be a 2D surface projected on a 3D sphere? When we move into that 3D space off of the 2D surface, then we can perceive its actual shape and dimensions. So maybe perceiving our universe would be similar, where we would have to be able to project ourselves outside of it in order to perceive its "shape". In the meantime, we're stuck with trying to seduce it from the inside.
What's beyond the observable universe, who knows, presumably more of the same. What's beyond the universe? Nothing can exist outside the universe in this block of space-time. There may well be other "uni"-verses but they would exist in different blocks of space-time and there is no way to connect with them.
Dear space mugg👀 Have a question 👀 Kan you ask astronauts of bick station and small station our craft ask to video the son and look to And than see that bick syation has brighter sunlight experience and smaler less brighter oldo if the smaler is in prossesion of aneroide barometer when the bick and smaler closses you wil experience rising pressures (diamagneticle simtoms) than the sun imeging in the smaler station risses more stronger allong the way
Maybe the universe can exist in two states, depending on scale, simultaneously...😉. Quantum and Relativity just coexist, like happy neighbours. Maybe there is no universal single theory after all....Quantum theory itself seems perfectly happy for two states of matter to coexist if it's at a small enough scale. So why not the laws of Physics itself??? Best wishes as always from Auckland, NZ.
Behind our opsurveble univers is the total interacting behavieures of existance In a way Interacctin. Opsurved opsurver as you and the interacting for it to show itself to you as opsurver and yed on the operside from it amd you is olso the interacting behavieures of existance for you to opsudve the total opsurving universe🌹🐜
In a way the total opsurveble with the total interacting behavieures of existance towart the opsurver and osurved to be able to exists and to do wat they do
Order of magnetudss there resistances 🥰 there conductivetys and copasetys so in a way do we see the opsurved our dus the space within and around the opsurver and opsurved translating itself as to elchader For the opsurver to been triggerd to see As marionettes of these translations to opsurve👀🌱
Heb supper position neither death our alive nobady and everi one symontainiusley at the same time Olso horses onvaluating opservations Likbyou ou look to and see tace the opsurved its total interacting behavieures towart its experience and it fades away And yet is the infiorment ophone you brings no conditions towart your debiation from moment to moment in a matter that you can react interact for it to react and translations thentional translations in to your eyes to be regulated and shaped in imagionary seeing🥰
Not oll galaxys are expanding👀🥰 It depends when there is a graventational countering in to a metacontaier and that universe is dragged allong with the space it is witinn than it catelistic expands amd than implodes In a way seeing bleu light would explained this olradde
Despite the huge number of channels on astronomical, astrophysical and cosmological topics, the problem of the boundaries of the observable universe, i.e. the cosmological horizon, is relatively rarely discussed. Which is all the more strange is that this problem really shows the huge scale of the Universe and our cognitive limitations. Thank you for your wonderful presentation of this fascinating topic. Dr Maggie, I really like your style, keep it up 😉
Lets just face it, they don't know. The scientists just keep coming up with theories to continue the funding.
@@oliverguenther6360 Scientists are generally motivated by passion, not by money.
Thanks Maggie. Finally someone has explained big distances in a way that makes sense to me. I’ve heard plenty, you made it crystal clear.
Great to hear!
sound is a series of pressure waves, we have measured such with tech independent of whether or not a human was there or capable of hearing it. The universe as we can see it exists only in the past so we are ignorant of what is going on now.
absolutely
there is no sound in the universe - the "noise" is created in your brain, and even there it's a simulation, "noise" doesn't exist. as you say it is compression of a medium that we convert, in a brain.
@@HarryNicNicholas who said anything about sound being anywhere but in an environment like here on earth? In any case all you are doing is needlessly complicating the topic with that comment of yours. We are not the only species to rely on sound for survival, for communication. Sound is a particular section of the vast array of pressure wave series.
Excellent Point!: "The universe as we can see it exists only in the past so we are ignorant of what is going on now."
I’ve never heard that transdimensional analogy before, the bit about going up from a 2d spherical surface and then the higher-dimensional equivalent. Very clarifying! I’m gonna save this video for that part.
Glad you learnt something :-)
Actually observing Saturn above Venus for the first and last time on the 23rd with my daughter was the most awe inspiring for us. Don't expect to be around when it occurs again in 29.46 years.
🥰 the night skies have been so pretty lately
I’ve often wondered what is beyond the expanding universe as we know it but I’m not sure we’ll ever know for sure. Then again, we’re still learning
The Universe is full of wonders :-)
@ happily 😊
There's nothing beyond the expanding Universe, that question is an oximoron .
Love your style of presentation and your topics. Many more subscribers you deserve, hmmmm?
Thanks so much 🥰
That's something I wonder about a lot. It's a really interesting thing to think about and speculate about even if there's no way to ever know for sure.
Completely agree :-)
100,000% but the majority of space scientists will tell you it’s either useless or only theories that we can come up with are real even though they’d be wildly incomplete
Here’s a comment for the algorithm. Enjoyed the ep. 👍
I'd have liked to see some actual reference to AdS and AdS/CFT. (The terms, people. Kudos for displaying aspects of the theory.)
Juan and Lenny are doing great work there, and folks can grok the actual terms and people I'd think.
The recent work from RAS and Oxford accounting for temporal dilation is also eye opening. (Edit: I just saw the video from 2 weeks ago. Nice!)
My understanding is the TL;DR is "oh, perhaps not expanding, perhaps paths are dilating", but I only looked briefly tbh.
Youre right, sorry! and you're spot on about Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind's contributions being foundational in this field, thanks for the comment :-)
What will really blow your mind is when you realize there's no limit to how much you can divide space. Inside the smallest known subatomic particle there is enough space to fit a relatively small and yet complete version of our entire observable universe. All the subatomic particles within those lower dimensions likewise can contain their own dimensional reality within. But it would have to be the smallest known observable thing that we can never really see inside of. That is the nature of infinite. There is no limit to how large or how small.
There IS a limit to how small something can be - the Planck length.
@@stoobydootoo4098 The only limit is what we can observe and the limits of this scalar dimension. There may be infinite smaller dimensions and infinite larger dimensions.
There may be a limit to the size of a universe for example. That size would be equivalent to the smallest sub-atomic particle. Or potentially even smaller particles that constitute those particles we haven't discovered yet.
There could be a lot of relative variability and dynamic oscillation because velocity and relative time would also need to scale proportionally. We do see essentially static noise at the smallest scale.
Static noise could be a whole series of parallel universes exploding and imploding. AKA light or dark. If there is a limit to our universe it would be pure light from the outside.
One thing is for certain. There is no limit to how large or how small space can be. You can divide by infinite and never reach zero. Infinite fractions.
@stoobydootoo4098 is correct, the smallest thing is the planck length. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle implies trying to measure something at scales smaller than the Planck length requires so much energy that you'd create a black hole, making measurement impossible.
@@SpaceMog That's oddly specific! Did you know that any star larger than 485.34 solar masses is dark? I don't know exactly at what point the star would become a black hole however.
Given that the escape velocity at the surface of our sun is 617 700 m/s and the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. If our sun is one solar mass.
Then, 299 792 458/617 700 = 485.337 solar masses would have an escape velocity equivalent to the speed of light.
Theoretically the largest star in terms of solar masses is BAT99-98 at 226 solar masses.
What doesn't make sense is that theoretical stellar black holes are only 4 - 15 solar masses. While intermediate black holes are 100 - 10 000 solar masses and super massive black holes like those at the center of galaxies are millions or billions of solar masses.
How are they not emitting light if the mass is too small to trap light?
@@SpaceMog Is your position that what cannot be measured does not exist?
In other words, when you look at your feet, around 1.8 meters away, that image you see, is already old 6 nano seconds. You never see your real foots.
😂 good analogy!
@@SpaceMog Well you just went too far, to the edge of universe, no real need to go that far :)
That's right! And *the same goes for the palm of your hand.*
If You're holding the palm of your hand 30 CM from your eyes, You do *not* see it as it is now - but _just_ as it had been one nanosecond ago. 😃
Considerably longer than that, actually, if you account for how long it takes for your eyes and brain to process that information.
Good morning 🌅, or it was , 😂, So where did the Big Bang 💥 happen, 🌅, not in time 🕰️, is it the bang that is causing the universe to still expanded , ? . We are only in how universe, as there is many more, so if you’re saying that it is getting bigger, where is the starting point?,
How do we know when we get there? , And of course the big question what was before the Big Bang. And will it or could it happen again? ,
I live in the Rural region of France Correze, I sometimes go outside at night 2- 3 o’clock in the morning, 🌅, I look up at the sky thinking what has happened where are we going?, What is out there?, and we are just a piece of dust and then it’s all over., and time it’s only infinite to a person, and so is time,
Timescape hypothesis- Certain wavelengths beyond red shift are no longer detectable in those distances. Quasars and fully formed galaxies could've coexisted and Big Bang just might be an optical illusion due to severe curvature of space and extreme time dilation pointing to, if we could see further, we would see pre Big Bang was more of the same of our universe. Timescape hypothesis
interesting
The universe doesn't need an edge, as you mention, just like the 2d surface on a sphere. Whilst the observable universe has a 'size' as observed from our position; Having an edge to the universe would add more complication, where there's no necessity for it.
Ok, now prove it :-)
@@SpaceMog😁 Ok, that's slightly more difficult than me just typing a sentence stating my current beliefs (yeah, and it's not very scientific of me 🤔); It just negates the issue of having something else beyond an edge (not the observable bit but beyond). If it were similar to a 3D shape just getting bigger with an edge, but with nothing or something (but not spacetime) beyond this edge, then it wouldn't have any spacial or time dimension beyond that edge, and that would make it pretty much the same as a single point. So that would only make sense if it was a like a loop (similar to the 2D Earth's surface, a 2D bubble or a 1D ring ...or 3D+T spacetime in a loop (a bit more difficult to visualize ) etc, with the universe being everything and with no edge and no beyond. Plus in the observable bit, you can look in any direction to see the CMB (with the right gear of course) and infer the point of the Big Bang, which is a single point that appears everywhere, and we're all, from our perspective, at the centre of the universe, again another single point. All of the observable universe is between these two points. The observable bit is just a restriction from our viewpoint ...but it still seems like a loop to me. I'm pretty sure if I've not explained that very well and I still haven't proved anything =¬).
thank you dr maggie ☺ this is a reminder how science and philosophy overlap 👍
Great video
Glad you enjoyed it
I love these videos 🤪
Red nails look amazing on you btw.
Thanks 😅
I expect the universe is infinite in extent, rather than inwardly curved and therefore finite. Nothing so far discovered has disproven that, and space over large distance is totally flat to the limits of our ability to measure it. P.S. Just discovered you and subscribed. Excellent presentation.
Sound is the pressure wave of an event travelling through a medium like air or water, so yes, the tree will still make sound even if there's no one to hear it. But I always feel that question is more arrogant philosophical concern like the idea that the Earth was centre of the universe, that was corrected by the Copernican principle of we are not special or unique. Unless you're talking about the double slit experiment and quantum entanglement. That still makes my brain hurt...
It depends on the definition of sound. Initially this saying came when the definition is our perception of air vibrations but physics interpretation is the wave itself so you are a right, its more philosophical, but i think it ties to the quantum in modern day too :-)
I love it ❤ It's so fascinating.
Thanks for watching
I do like Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, the theory proposed by Sir Roger Penrose. Thank you, Space Mog, this was a great, mind expanding video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Fascinating video, Maggie. Always boggles my mind to think the universe could be infinite yet with a finite beginning (est.13.8b yrs old) 🤯- if the universe is a bubble, what’s outside the bubble? 🫣🥵definitely feel we’re either in a simulation or multi dimensional construct. 😅
More bubbles of universes, just like our own, you get a different occupation in each universe 🥰 thanks for watching!
@ always wanted to be a spaceman. 🥹
Douglas Adams knows.
Gravity weakens with distance, but there’s no defined point where gravity ends.and every object with mass exerts some gravitational pull, and the universe itself has mass. so imagine it gravity value.
interesting thought, stars start to drop off at the edge of a galaxy, galaxies drop off at the edge of clusters, if there are multiple universes, do they drop off too? theres no indication of it at the scales we observe
This is incorrect. Gravity still travels at the speed of light. Anything beyond the observable universe is traveling away from us faster than the speed of light, so the gravity from those objects can never reach us. The cosmic horizon at the edge of the observable universe cuts off even gravity.
If a tree falls on your house, did it really fall on your house if no one was around to see it?
If i dont look, it didnt happen 🙃
antonio padilla in conversation with sean carroll proposed the idea that even if the cosmos (what we can't see) were finite, that it is so vast that you could travel for a very long distance and eventually you would bump into another milky way galaxy, that there doesn't need to be an infinite number of OTHER universes, just that our (entire) universe is so big it runs out of variants and you will get duplication.
He lives just up my corridor, i would love to grill him on this someday!
If you could move the JWST, in any direction, halfway from here to the edge of our observable universe, it would show you the same view that we see from here, and our Milky Way galaxy would appear to be at the far-edge of that observable universe. But, the fact is that like two Venn-diagram intersecting spheres, your known universe would share a part of our known universe. The rest of both universes would be unknown to the other!
The earth is in the center of the bubble of our known universe which appears the same to us regardless of the direction in which we look. New data from the JWST confirms large galaxies existing near the edge of our universe, where they should not be according to the big bang origin theory.
Our known universe contains billions and billions of galaxies, which each contain billions and billions of stars, each of which is home to a multitude of planets and moons in differing zones of distance from those stars. The probability of many of those worlds having conditions similar to those here is undeniable.
The past is behind the "now plank-length-moment" and is set in stone, unalterable, and the future is yet to be written and is certainly not determined. We exist in a place where we CAN exist and that's all there is to it!
Yes, Space, time and speed will alter conscious observers perceptions of reality, but not what happened in that tick of the cosmic clock. It would not matter if you could travel at warp speeds, 10, 100 or 1000 times the speed of light, you can never go backwards in time with respect to Newton's cosmic clock. That is to say that you can never leave a place and return to it before you left it.
oh boy are you saying it only is rendered as someone observes it? was it there before the observations or only because of the observations just made... like video game modelling.
Thats a genuine theory!
@@SpaceMogcrazy to think of it as even a slight probability. I’m taking the double slit experiment into consideration. Spooky actions from a distance!
As an acoustics engineer, a sound is definitely a sound if noone hears it. The vibration the air existed so the sound waves exist. Once the sound has entered the ears it is no longer a sound, it is now an electrical signal representing the sound
Only creatures with ears can hear sounds. So, there are no 'sound' waves, only pressure differential waves.
If our descendants live to the time when the only stars in the sky are from our own galaxy cluster, how could we ever prove to them that these other stars ever existed? It’s just strange that there are things we know to be true now but that- with enough generations removed- there can start to be reasonable doubt and our theories could be dismissed as ancient superstition.
Hopefully we will still have books and our data logging them. Just like we know the crab nebula was once a supernova in 1054 AD, it was so bright that it could be seen during the day, and thanks to the chinese drawings we know of this :-)
Assuming mankind makes it that far into the future.
..”string theory describes”..multiple Universes.. interacting with our own.. would you be able to go into that a little? Time, is a constant between them, or does symmetry equate to minimal divergence at dim.0.1 ?
Waving particles, entropy, and forces interacting 😎🤖
all this reminds me a scene of the movie " fantastic voyage " (1966) where the incredible complexity of the human body itself seems like some kind of universe with terrifying creatures ( antibodies, white blood cells...). what if we were living...in a living being ? nice video.
That would be so interesting
@@SpaceMog thanks for your comment !! have a good day !
The thrill is in the unknown. If we find the answers, what then?
Its only human nature to want to know :-)
@SpaceMog are you a "big crunch" or "big chill" enthusiast? or another theory perhaps?
A falling tree causes a pressure wave which vibrates the air which is picked up by tiny hairs in the ear which send electronic signals to the brain which translates these as "sound" within one's brain.
"In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid." So yes, a tree makes a noise even if nothing with hearing is around to hear it. Also the egg came first. You're welcome.
😂 Thanks for clarifying
I coded an cosmogenesis sim by accident once. derivative of an information substrate agnostic abiogenesis model. It seemed to imply universes are due non quantum quasi-inflationary information dynamics, which generate QM like macro and micro subspace topologies sandwiched between two more primordial/classical information phases that looked a bit like dark matter/energy. Curiously the two phases had differing temporal characteristics. These differing temporal characteristics at the boundary blended together like gravity blending time into space.
Anyways monte carlo tested various things, finding the sim seemed to suggest a naïve GUT dimensionless information coupling ratio of ~1/24 was the optimum rate for initiating inflationary events in statistically gaussian patches of the grander pre-physical information construct. Other non uniform patches of of information outside universes alternatively seemed to imply scope for non biologic life like dynamics far grander and complex than mere finitely bounded universes, if generalization of the original abiogenesis axioms was meaningful...
I'm not sure I agree with the framing of this question. The horizon on Earth is a lot different than the horizon of the observable universe. On Earth, you can't see over the horizon, but you can move along the surface of Earth to a position where you can see what was over the horizon from a different location. You can't do that in the universe. The observable universe is different because the horizon isn't just inconvenient, it is ironclad and impossible to subvert. It felt like there is a subtle implication that maybe with future science, we'll one day find the answer to what is outside the observable universe, but this is exceedingly doubtful, just as doubtful as someone one day building a perpetual motion machine. It breaks the fundamental laws of physics for us to ever observe or interact with anything beyond the cosmic horizon.
So going back to how the video started, if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, maybe there are other ways to trace the falling of that tree. Maybe the sound wave has a ripple effect that produces a measurable interaction with a nearby person. But if a star explodes beyond the cosmic horizon, that can't happen. We are causally separated from it, and nothing can ever pass that information from beyond the horizon to us. That's why I don't think anything beyond the observable universe is "real". We are causally disconnected from it, and unless the last 80 years or so of physics is all wrong, that will never change.
As far as higher dimensional travel goes, that's all String Theory which, after decades really doesn't have any observational evidence to back it up. I'm not buying it. Seems more like something mathematical that a subset of physicists use to keep their jobs at universities.
Anyway, I don't think "what is beyond the observable universe?" is going to be something we seriously research or try to solve. It's outside of reality and always will be. It is not an answerable question.
Imagine the furthest known galaxy we observe, JADES-GS-z14-0. Well, on there there's a civilisation that have built themselves a space telescope. And they've just observed their furthest galaxy. They call it mILKy-w4y. And someone is mulling over the answer to what is outside the observable universe.
Now, look in the opposite direction out to a distance of 46 billion light years. That's their answer.
@@Captain-Cardboard Ok, but that doesn't change anything. We don't have any of the information that they do, in fact, we are seeing their home galaxy probably before their star even formed. In fact, the light from their star will probably never even reach us, because by the time it ignites, they'll pass the horizon for us. There's no way we'll ever be able to know they exist, much less get information about what they see. We are so disconnected from them causally that they are effectively not even real.
Pais was wise to say “ The 20th C physicist’s do not claim to I have a definitive answer for this” but ultimately, he was very wrong because the vast majority of space scientists will still absolutely try to convince you that they know the answers well before they ever come to any sort of humble realistic, conclusion that they don’t. Hence the dogma in this field still.
Hi dr. Maggie liue I think like we know the speed of light which 3 into 10 power -11 km/s it is travelling in infinite speed and universe is expanding to travel across universe we need to travel 99.9999999% of speed of light across universe 😊. We need to build a spaceship or satellite which can travel in speed of light and sends us the data in fraction of seconds 😊.
What do you think it would feel like to travel in such a ship? Would you get travel sickness?
From my understanding that our cosmic horizon is running away from us faster than speed of light, a spaceship traveling at 99.999... light speed will not ever reach a point to give us more than a little additional information. As well, subject to time dilation, a finite universe will end in minutes of the spaceships clock and the collision of the spaceship with perfect symmetry, might be the spark for the next Big Bang.) Spaceship also might achieve critical mass and collapse into a black hole. This is why minds like yours are perfect for exploring GR science.
Even if you sent a probe out at slightly slower than c, it can't transmit the data back to us any faster than c. We can't even get data back from the moon in a fraction of a second. There's no way to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
Awesome video.
👋
I would suspect the cooler space is or becomes the more we could expect space to take on physical properties. Enough to shape energy to the reality we observe.
Hilbert Space
Minkowski Space
Space Cat Space 🪐🐈
The Escher infinity series was really pretty deep, gotta give those 1920's thinkers their due
❤️
I wonder what the elasticity of space-time is? It's not made of rubber, but, it's made of ... something, and that something is expanding. That something is curved, stretched, warped, and pinched by bodies like planets, stellar masses, neutron stars, black holes, white holes, galaxies, and ... everything that has mass, or, even perhaps negative mass if that can even exist.
Is there a limit to that something that space-time, or the fabric of the universe is made of can be pinched, pulled, stretched, warped, and/or stretched? How could that be tested? Could the science fiction concept of "tearing" or "poking" a hole in the fabric of the universe be a thing? Have we observed a wormhole, even a microscopic one created in a particle accelerator? What would a "tear" in the fabric of spacetime look like or how would that even function?
Is dark matter or dark whatever an illusion, or artifact of how space time is pinched, stretched, and variable everywhere with time running slower in some areas, and time running faster in other areas? If you go in a straight line to anywhere in any direction, you're going to have "slower" time the closer you are to extremely massive bodies, and then "faster" time the further you're out of a gravity well. It makes the universe look a bit like a skate-park. In short distances of of "only" a few light years, that landscape probably wouldn't have much of an impact, but, over time, and distance, all those hills and valleys, do they average out?
I still like to think of the Universe as a combination of an octahedron/cube framework within a sphere of expanding waves. No proof of that obviously, just like the way it progresses when mapped (follows a simple square root pattern forming filaments with particle clusters and voids) Plus it's really simple to draw, which is perfect for me. As an aside, the same framework might actually explain how gravity works too, no need for dark energy/matter or gravitons. So goes my theory anyway... Enjoy
I love that visual too
@SpaceMog It's an interesting framework, can be used for orthographic/perspective projection depending on the location of the observer. Using it as a model for designing a graphics engine
More universe. Our observable universe is a bubble simply because our visual limit is the same in all directions. The verse is effectively infinite, as light and mass are equally invested, which causes a singularity that progresses near-vertical on the graph. Even the great attractor could just be the center of an ultragalaxy comprising billions or trillions of galaxies, and there could be endless ultragalaxies. Both sides scale out forever, reviewing one another and swapping light (Vishnu) and mass (Shiva) to maintain balance and eventry (Brahma), or eventual symmetry. 😮❤😊
Astronomers get their interpretations mixed up between seeing distant galaxies and proper motion due to the expansion of space. Our observations are limited to the speed of light, age of the universe, evolution of stars, galaxies, distances involved and Einstein's look-back time.
According to theory, light travels through the vacuum of space at a constant. Light travels through space at the same rate if space is expanding or if it's not expanding. It should then take light information longer to travel 13.8 billion light years if space has been expanding exponentially for 13.8 billion years. Light information has a further distance to travel. Thus explaining the shift in the wavelength of light. It's not tired light because light travels at a constant. The light information at that distance, according to theory should be way younger than we're measuring. When we take into account Einstein's look-back time, age of the universe, distance and the evolution of stars and galaxies, then the edge of the observable universe would be a maximum light distance of only 12.7 billion light years away. This is because a galaxy in order to be visible at that distance would have to be at least a billion years old after the big bang for it's light to be measured. Dim diffuse galaxies further than 12.7 billion light years away would be too dim and diffuse.
What did the JWST find at the edge of the observable universe? It discovered old, not young but old, fully mature, bright galaxies, some were up to 100 times larger than our own Milky Way but at a light distance further than 13.5 billion light years away. Even the ground based Subaru telescope discovered galaxy HD1 13.5 billion light years away. IMPOSSIBLE according to theory. Then in 2023 after the JADES survey, astronomers discovered even older, larger galaxies further than 14 billion light years away. Astronomers began calling them Universe Breakers because they broke all the rules!
So, where did astronomers with PhD's go astray with their interpretations, for the JWST proved several cosmological predictions wrong?
I knew the interpretations were construed before the JWST was launched in 2021. I even came up with a solution. I published the paperback book *SECRET UNIVERSE : GRAVITY BY RON KEMP* September 27, 2021, 3 months before the JWST was launched. On page 48 I wrote quote, "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." And that's exactly what the telescope found causing such a stir among expert scientists today.
Thus far scientists have postulated on an older universe, which would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. They've postulated on a dark matter big bang occurring after the first big bang. They've postulated on multiple universes. They've postulated on cyclical universes of big bangs and big crunches. They've postulated on tired light. They've postulated on miniature baby bubble universes colliding with ours. Yet none of these postulates can fully explain the observations without contradicting the laws of physics, theories of gravity, big bang, cosmic inflation, dark ages, reionization, dark matter, Hubble constant or the LCDM model. It's the reason why astronomers and astrophysicists are grasping for straws to come up with a reasonable explanation for old, massive galaxies found further than a light distance of 14 billion light years away.
I knew that's what the JWST would discover. In 2010 I tried to tell NASA employees on their space forum under the thread, Ask An Astronomer how telescopes cannot look back in time and how gravity has a positive push and negative pull reaction to matter based on the amount of energy the large bodies produce in their cores. They mocked me. Stars and galaxies spewing million mile per hour solar winds behave differently than planets and moons.
I was the only person to accurately predicted what the JWST would find before the telescope was launched. I must be right. In order to understand, scientists have to put all their preconceived notions and assumptions aside and read my book completely. What I wrote goes against everything we were taught about cosmology. Thus why we have to go into the solution with a fresh start, different perspective. Don't assume any of the theories are correct, especially the age of the universe, big bang, cosmic inflation and more. These postulates are all assumptions based on our interpretations when observing the universe. Theories are the best guesses to explain observations. Theories then can be either confirmed or refuted through further observations. And right now, several theories were shown to be wrong with the CEERS and JADES surveys by the JWST.
best eyelashes on Spacetube
👁 ❤️
Is the "observable universe" relative to were you are? Can someone on Pluto see further than someone on earth?
Yes. Ignore Pluto, though. That's small fry. Think of the furthest galaxy we observe. To an astronomer there WE are the furthest galaxy THEY observe. And by turning round and looking in the opposite direction we can see another 46 billion light years past the edge of their observable universe.
This is something I have contemplated for quite a while now, In our mundane experience on this planet everything seems to be finite. Therefore how do we even conceive of the infinite? Even with the concept of a multiverse, i.e. having bubble like structures of multiple universes within......what is beyond that then?
ending song?
My own ai generation 🥰
@@SpaceMog :O will. you be releasing it?
@@SpaceMog i knew it was ai generation since very long. did you register its copyright (you, as the operator of the AI, get the copyright in the UK)?
I suspect that, this universe is either infinite, or, just like galaxies are multiple galactic distances apart, so too, multiple universes exist, and they are multiple universal distances apart
We will never be able to see it all - isnt that so sad?
What's sad to me, is that people from 2000 years ago will never know the beauty that we today have seen
Is 93 billion light years, not enough for all the beauty?
The reality that we will never TOUCH the distances that we can see, saddens me
I’ve pondered this question myself in my younger years, now in my older years I’ve come up with an answer. Does it really matter? It won’t change anything or our perception of it.
10. The Universe is divided into seven units, i.e. rings or belts that, entirely together, form the whole Universe, and all of these rings are rotating against each other and have different diameters and an ovoid shape.
11. These seven rings, which we call belts, are the following:
12. i. Central Core,
ii. Ur-Core Belt,
iii. Ur-Space Belt,
iv. Solid-state Matter Universe Belt,
v. Transformation Belt,
vi. Creation Belt, and
vii. Displacement Belt
says who ?
@@SpaceMog This is the writing of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier
Odd to see a Ph.D liking such woo.
Billy's antisemitism is icing, and likely relates to why the sprout we're commenting under lapped it up.
if you insist. can you invite me to your nobel acceptance speech, this i gotta hear.
👍👍👍
I haven't even got past the idea that there is something at all. My little brain is stuck in a cause and effect loop. How did it all begin? And from what and from where?
I want to know too :-)
Commenting to feed the algorithm 🙃
Thank you 🥰
Very thought provoking video from a beautiful lady 😊
Glad you think so!
There is no end as there is no beginning everything travels faster than light and everythink started if it ever did all in 0.0000000000001
But then there would be a start
@SpaceMog I belive the big bang did not start everything maybe it's somethink that's been going on like time and space being part of each other if that makes any sense lol
Did your punctuation characters, & spelling dictionary fall into a black hole?
0:07 These are the kind of questions for a linguist.
😂
great video,mind is blown, thanks
doubt we will ever know the truth, simply because we are part of the universe trying to observe the universe, our consciousness is too limited
Thanks for watching :-)
I think all the socks I've lost doing laundry are out there.
Darn!
More universe. No beginning. No end.
Amazing... Now I cannot but wonder, if we basically live on a 2D surface of the Earth, and the easiest way to realize its shape and size was to go up - into the third spatial dimension - is it possible then that the only way to comprehend the size and shape of the universe (and what's beyond) is only if you go into the fourth dimension? And even if that would be possible, wouldn't there be another, bigger universe, then, which would be easiest seen only if you go into the fifth dimension? I mean, mathematically all those dimensions are possible, those shapes do exist, but it's incredibly hard to imagine how could you even reach those and whether it ever ends...
One can not define the observable universe in a universe that can not be definitively defined. The questions "What is 5% of infinite space" and "what is 5% of I don’t know" are equally absurd.
If reality is in a state of superposition, it still exists. It exists as a superposition.
It's ok, no need to panic, you all exist in my imagination.
Tomorrow, I might change a few digits in pi, and you'll never know... or will you...?
Please don't.... it could destroy everything 😲
@@SpaceMog The universe is safe as long as I have coffee.
It's either nothing or everything
All the missing stuff is hiding out there? 🙈
I think it’s all just consciousness tbh
maybe...
Of course it makes a sound because it makes sound waves. Nobody has to be there to hear it. The waves still exist and so does the tree.
How do you know the sound waves happened?
@
Because that is the result of a falling tree. The air is still there in our absence and the air molecules are still being vibrated by the vibrations caused by the falling tree.
Your question is a philosophical question, not a scientific question. It’s the same with the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. The philosophical view is that the cat can be considered both alive and dead because until we look in the box we don’t know which. However, in real life the cat is most certainly either alive OR dead and Schrödinger wasn’t suggesting otherwise.
TL;DR: We know how sound waves are created so we know that the tree falling makes sound.
@@SpaceMog
BTW, my credentials are a state issued GED 😅, so I’m not claiming to be a reliable source of information.
i think that the universe might just be a single atom of something much bigger... and the big bang is just the split of the nucleus so, the galaxies and solar systems and planets are just the protons and neutrons and electrons bursting apart...
if you think about it... the atom is arranged like a solar system that is arranged like a galaxy that is probably arranged like the universe... so why shouldn't it just be part of something bigger?
by arranged... i mean that there is a core and a force that keeps the surrounding elements within the boundaries of the core.
i have no idea if that made any sense... haha 🤯🤣
You're absolutely right, the similarities in structure are striking. It's actually a concept that's been explored in various forms, sometimes called the "fractal universe" theory, but we don't have scientific evidence to support the idea. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
er, silly question. would it be silly to say "almost infinite"? that is, not actually infinite, but pretty close? cos i wonder if - could the universe be finite, but so big that you could (still) not reach that boundary? an infinite number minus one, sorta thing? cos i just wonder if the universe just happens to be finite and therefore not boggling, but still so big you couldn't actually define it's size (cos surely if it is finite you could say "it's X miles wide" which seems a bit squiffy for a universe).
The word infinite is just a concept we have to express by negation. in (not) finite (limited). So there really isn't an "infinity -1" because infinity really isn't a number, its a concept of the idea that there's no limit to the scope. There's sizes that are inexpressible by mathematical notation, which are still finite and there's just "mindbogglingly huge" which is bigger than humans can realistically comprehend, but that can still be finite. So the universe outside of the observable universe could be a graham's number times bigger than the observable universe, which is completely incomprehensible, but that would still be smaller than infinite... as they say, "you could fit an infinite number of them in an infinite space", which is sort of tautological to the point of being meaningless.
Yes, it is silly. Nothing is 'almost infinite'. Zero is as close to infinity as the largest number you can conceive of is.
That would still be finite :-)
What’s beyond the observable universe? Just more universe, galaxies, stars and planets. Just repeating themselves forever and ever.
I typed a big comment in and it lost it. Does it still exist, according to Quantum theory?
In some universe, your big comment made a huge contribution and changed civilisation as we know it
@SpaceMog 😄😄😄
By definition the universe is infinite, because every "thing" is in-finite. Atoms are not dots, they are made up of quantum bits that have no finite definition, because waves have no finite definition. Infinity goes in both, no ALL directions. In fact, direction, itself is just a construct imposed upon space-time by our limited perception.
Unknown, & unknowable.
I want to know everything
Most importantly, is there a Restaurant At The End Of The Universe? And is there a Main Dish Of The Day? 😋
Im always thinking of food. I keep thinking of making a video on food in space but like real space food - not earth food :-)
@SpaceMog me too! In fact, I'm hungry now. By all means, I'll watch it! 😊
👍 🤗
Thanks for watching
"Behold, Eck!".
😂
If the universe is like the Earth analogy, then if a photon travels in a straight line for trillions of light years, would someday get back to the same spot it was emitted? If this could happen, could someone be able to see their own past? (supposing that the expansion of the universe is still slow enough to allow it)
If the universe was small, and of finite size and unbounded; yes, you could see the back of your head as light looped around. However, the universe is expanding and the horizon prevents this from ever happening. Astronomers are pretty confident that the universe is bigger than the observable universe, or at least that the observable universe doesn't have loops like that or otherwise we'd be able to see some distant galaxies from two different angles. So far all surveys have failed to find anything like this, so it probably isn't a thing.
6;39
We only calls these data constants and laws because our early explanations of the Universe. They implied first a God creating a fixed wirld, second a ruler fixing laws (moral and physical).
Has it been proven that constants aren't variables, or is it assumed? Are physical laws not habbits ? How do you know?
Listen to Rupert Sheldrake for more...
There's nothing, because the edge of the universe is the event horizon of spacetime, if you were to be at the edge, you would be in the remnants of the beginning.
That's how I see it, anyway.
we live in a holographic universe
What's within the visible universe? The unseen and undetectable.
Our old best friends hear it
I think that if you look far enough, you will see the back of your own head.
Need a pretty big telescope first!
"What beyond the Observable Universe?"......The Unobservable universe......yeah.....😅. It's just the limit of our shared consciousness It's as far as our Thalamus can reach. Another 10,0oo more years of scientists dropping good LSD and we will expand this boundary.
My smooth brain hurts right now
sorry 😣
@SpaceMog its all good👍 I'm learning. I love your videos and look forward to them every week
Hello Dr Maggie, as others have said, the tree falling would certainly create pressure waves. But then it depends on your definition of 'sound' or 'noise' of course.
In Quantum theory atomic scale things can be more than one mutually exclusive thing simultaneously until an observation is made. Seems crazy, but 100 years have gone past and it all seems to work within scope.
Maybe the assumption that the laws of Physics must be the same for both big and small objects simultaneously is itself wrong. Two laws, depending on scale, but one universe......???? 😉 Best wishes as always from New Zealand.
No I don't think sound matters if only someone hears it. I think trees still exists even if people don't hear them..
It could be an obvious answer.Couldnt it ? The question is asked because some person thought up the question, Nothing more maybe?
When the question was first asked it did! 🥰
The likeliest thing would be, of course, to assume the same thing goes on and on. There is nothing special about this horizon as we perceive it, since there is nothing special about us. An Astronomer from Andromeda shall see a slightly different horizon; an Astronomer from a Galaxy, say, three billion light years away from us shall see something very different. For Astronomers living 46 billion light years away from us, *they* would naturally be at the center of the Universe, with us at the edge - and, of course, looking at our direction, they will only get to see the earliest seedlings of our Galaxy, as it was only starting to form... and their horizon, of course, shall stretch 46 billion light years away from them, at all directions.
To believe, that we are the actual center of everything, and there is nothing else beyond what *we* are able to see, is just as *ridiculous* as assuming that, if from my Home I am only able to see a mountain and a field, but no other houses, then no other houses exist anywhere, at all. 😂 This is *_beyond_* egocentric, this is fully fledged solipsistic LOL
Oh, and if a Tree falls anywhere, _someone_ most certainly saw it... lots of persons most certainly saw it.
Since *not only **_humans_** have eyes...* 😃
Answer: Unobservable Universe!
More space. Other big bang Universes. For infinity in every direction. That is until the fuses in the human brain can't handle the giga-normity. It doesn't end because it cannot end, whatever contains it is the start of more space. Imagine being given the capacity to be a part of it, to explore, to make use of it: then spending all your energy squabbling over ugly bits of real estate. Trapped in the Drake Equation like little mindless muppets.
Wouldn't our earth be a 2D surface projected on a 3D sphere? When we move into that 3D space off of the 2D surface, then we can perceive its actual shape and dimensions. So maybe perceiving our universe would be similar, where we would have to be able to project ourselves outside of it in order to perceive its "shape". In the meantime, we're stuck with trying to seduce it from the inside.
Exactly - we need to move in 4+ D to really get it 😭
What's beyond the observable universe, who knows, presumably more of the same. What's beyond the universe? Nothing can exist outside the universe in this block of space-time.
There may well be other "uni"-verses but they would exist in different blocks of space-time and there is no way to connect with them.
Dear space mugg👀
Have a question 👀
Kan you ask astronauts of bick station and small station our craft ask to video the son and look to
And than see that bick syation has brighter sunlight experience and smaler less brighter oldo if the smaler is in prossesion of aneroide barometer when the bick and smaler closses you wil experience rising pressures (diamagneticle simtoms) than the sun imeging in the smaler station risses more stronger allong the way
Maybe the universe can exist in two states, depending on scale, simultaneously...😉. Quantum and Relativity just coexist, like happy neighbours. Maybe there is no universal single theory after all....Quantum theory itself seems perfectly happy for two states of matter to coexist if it's at a small enough scale. So why not the laws of Physics itself??? Best wishes as always from Auckland, NZ.
Behind our opsurveble univers is the total interacting behavieures of existance
In a way
Interacctin. Opsurved opsurver as you and the interacting for it to show itself to you as opsurver and yed on the operside from it amd you is olso the interacting behavieures of existance for you to opsudve the total opsurving universe🌹🐜
In a way the total opsurveble with the total interacting behavieures of existance towart the opsurver and osurved to be able to exists and to do wat they do
Nou👀🦚🤗🐒🌀🐢🤗🦬
in a way with the eye of understanding you can see more as with withs ever phisicle sencoring organs of eurth biologicals🐍
Order of magnetudss there resistances 🥰 there conductivetys and copasetys so in a way do we see the opsurved our dus the space within and around the opsurver and opsurved translating itself as to elchader
For the opsurver to been triggerd to see
As marionettes of these translations to opsurve👀🌱
Heb supper position neither death our alive nobady and everi one symontainiusley at the same time
Olso horses onvaluating opservations
Likbyou ou look to and see tace the opsurved its total interacting behavieures towart its experience and it fades away
And yet is the infiorment ophone you brings no conditions towart your debiation from moment to moment in a matter that you can react interact for it to react and translations thentional translations in to your eyes to be regulated and shaped in imagionary seeing🥰
Not oll galaxys are expanding👀🥰
It depends when there is a graventational countering in to a metacontaier and that universe is dragged allong with the space it is witinn than it catelistic expands amd than implodes
In a way seeing bleu light would explained this olradde
three layers on the outside, three layers on the inside, like an onion
Why 3?
Or an ogre.
It’s turtles all the way down!
An unanswerable question.