A scientific and perspective question

[shadowstriker86]

I love science and at the same time im a christian (hard to believe isnt it?) and as i was explaining to my friend why im such a big fan of science, one of those really fun questions popped into my head: If there really is an edge to the universe, what would it look like? Honestly i have no idea but if i had to pick an image, i'd pick the one from futurama where its like one of those tourists bridges where you put a quarter in a binocular thing and look at a parallel universe, what aboot you fellow escapists?

 

[Timotei]

There is no way to determine if there is an edge to the universe at the moment

 

[Valate_v1legacy]

It wouldn't look like anything. There's nothing for the light to reflect on, and the edge of the universe is expanding like four times the speed of light.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

You'd never get there

Why? You'd loop back upon from were you started as you would be unable to take a ship and drive it stright until you get to the 'end'

 

[shadowstriker86]

You'd probably get a good look and then promptly go utterly mad.

Shortly thereafter, you would be hit by a bus in an unrelated incident.

So I guess what I'm saying is...
It looks like whatever would completely destroy your mind.

wasnt there a movie that like that?

 

[Kubanator]

There is no edge of the universe. Gravity causes space to fold over itself, meaning if you moved faster than the speed of light in a straight line, you'd end up where you started. Alternatively, if gravity is not strong enough to do so, you would never reach the edge. as the universe expands at the speed of light, and you cannot reach that speed.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Didn't you hear maaaaan? There is no edge.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Hmm... I'll let you know when I find out.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

As the good Christopher Hitchens once said, "if it were to be discovered either that the universe was finite or infinite, either conclusion should be equally mindblowing to me." (Though I am quoting that from memory, so it may not be exact.) Point is, we haven't even figured out if the universe has an edge, let's get that part figured out before we decide what it looks like.

 

[shadowstriker86]

There is no edge of the universe. Gravity causes space to fold over itself, meaning if you moved faster than the speed of light in a straight line, you'd end up where you started. Alternatively, if gravity is not strong enough to do so, you would never reach the edge. as the universe expands at the speed of light, and you cannot reach that speed.

for some reason that reminds me of that one level from super mario bros. where the level just kept looping

 

[DJ Lord Destructocon]

Ah great, another "let's show how much we know about astrophysics!" thread. All these people who are repeating to you what they learned in their high school physics class are probably saying something that sounds reasonable, but the end of the universe actually looks like 20 turkeys simultaneously re-enacting the crucifiction of Jesus Christ and the OJ Simpson trial, trhough interpretive dance.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I'd be like in Whitest Kids You Know when they flew out and just started tripping

 

[ottenni]

It wouldn't look like anything because there would be no light traveling of it as no light would have reached that far yet.

 

[Spaghetti]

To quote the venerable Douglas Adams - "There is a theory that If we discover why the universe is here, it will instantly dissapear and be replaced with something even more bizzare and inexplicable. There is another theory that this has already happened"

On a more serious note, this thread reminds me of a rather thought provoking idea:
"When you stare up into the night sky, you are staring into infinity"

Don't ask me where this line comes from, I can't remember where.

 

[Epicurus]

There is no edge to the universe in conventional terms, no barriers that contain everything.

Rather than an edge, per se, there is an event horizon, this means that the boundary of the universe is determined only by how far light has traveled outwards from the big bang and thus how far we can observe.

Think of it like a bag made from infinitely stretchy and frictionless material, if you were to get in your spaceship and travel all the way to the edge of the universe, all the way to where light from the big bang itself was still penetrating into the nothingness, and were you to hypothetically travel faster than this light (ignoring all the potential problems involved with FTL travel for the purposes of this hypothesis) then you would effectively be pushing out this infinitely stretchy bag and expanding the borders of the universe, because these borders are only the horizon of how far the composite parts of the universe have expanded outwards.

The universe is not infinite, however, for it can only extend out until such time as it reaches maximum entropy, when it will then begin to collapse back in on itself. Theoretically, of course.

 

[shadowstriker86]

There is no edge to the universe in conventional terms, no barriers that contain everything.

Rather than an edge, per se, there is an event horizon, this means that the boundary of the universe is determined only by how far light has traveled outwards from the big bang and thus how far we can observe.

Think of it like a bag made from infinitely stretchy and frictionless material, if you were to get in your spaceship and travel all the way to the edge of the universe, all the way to where light from the big bang itself was still penetrating into the nothingness, and were you to hypothetically travel faster than this light (ignoring all the potential problems involved with FTL travel for the purposes of this hypothesis) then you would effectively be pushing out this infinitely stretchy bag and expanding the borders of the universe, because these borders are only the horizon of how far the composite parts of the universe have expanded outwards.

The universe is not infinite, however, for it can only extend out until such time as it reaches maximum entropy, when it will then begin to collapse back in on itself. Theoretically, of course.

but who's to say entropy has a maximum though? just a question cause if i remember right the definition of entropy is an undefined definition of something that can't be fully explained via scientific method, or something like that its been a while since ive been in a physics class

 

[Carbonic Penguin]

I believe that the universe doesn't have an edge, there just isn't anything beyond the outtermost matter, which is expanding. So, beyond the edge is nothing, as nothing has reached it yet.

 

[Epicurus]

but who's to say entropy has a maximum though? just a question cause if i remember right the definition of entropy is an undefined definition of something that can't be fully explained via scientific method, or something like that its been a while since ive been in a physics class

When I refer to entropy, I refer mainly to the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium. To explain in basic terms: when you have a system of interacting particles without any discernible outside influence, these particles share energy between each other as they interact within their environment. The amount of energy attributed to particles may vary, some with greater energy potential than others, transferring different amounts of energy to other particles upon reaction.

However, eventually this energy will not dissipate, but will equalize between the particles involved so that every particle in the system has the same energy as every other particle, thus removing all potential interaction.

For a very crude example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, imagine an ice-block and a cup of hot water, each of these containing the same amount of H2O. Now if they were both placed within the same container, they would react. The ice-block would cool the hot water, and the hot water would melt the ice-block. Eventually, however, they would reach the same temperature, the water would cool due to the ice-block's influence to the same point at which the ice block would melt due to the hot water's influence. You would end up with a container of water at one temperature and the reaction between the hot and cold materials would be over.

If you think of this in terms of the universe, the large amount of energy contained within the big bang is presently propelling everything outwards. However, once this energy has been transferred outwards there will no longer be an asymmetrical force pushing everything out against the force of gravity. At which point gravity will pull everything towards everything else and the universe will collapse in on itself.

 

[Kubanator]

When I refer to entropy, I refer mainly to the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium. To explain in basic terms: when you have a system of interacting particles without any discernible outside influence, these particles share energy between each other as they interact within their environment. The amount of energy attributed to particles may vary, some with greater energy potential than others, transferring different amounts of energy to other particles upon reaction.

However, eventually this energy will not dissipate, but will equalize between the particles involved so that every particle in the system has the same energy as every other particle, thus removing all potential interaction.

For a very crude example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, imagine an ice-block and a cup of hot water, each of these containing the same amount of H2O. Now if they were both placed withing the same container, they would react. The ice-block would cool the hot water, and the hot water would melt the ice-block. Eventually, however, they would reach the same temperature, the water would cool due to the ice-block's influence to the same point at which the ice block would melt due to the hot water's influence. You would end up with a container of water at one temperature and the reaction between the hot and cold materials would be over.

You're failing to account for quantum mechanics which ensures a system will never be equal.

 

[Epicurus]

You're failing to account for quantum mechanics which ensures a system will never be equal.

Please do explain. I am speaking merely from a layman's perspective (I'm studying a Computer Science major, not a Physics major), and I'm more than open to objection.