/sci/ - Science & Math

I dont know. but i heard there were more stars in the universe than atoms. so think about that

We can't be sure, since there are more brains in our bodies, than there are bodies in our brains.

>>5878727

but what about the skeletons?

>>5878739
There is a skeleton inside you this very moment.

The skellingtons inside you are trying to get out.

>>5878722
>Does the universe ever end?

No.

>What is beyond the observable universe?

More of the same.

inb4 "but you can't know hurr durr"

Answers are what our models predict.

>>5878750

everything has to end at some point

>>5878794
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of things which do not "end." For example, where do the integers "end?" Where does the surface of a sphere "end?" There is nothing preventing the universe from being of infinite extent and containing an infinite amount of stuff that we have thus far observed.

>>5878816
Furthermore, the possibility of parallel universes is plausible, and there is nothing to suggest there isnt an infinite number of parallel universes, which may or may not have different physical laws to our own.

>>5878722
The universe is finite but unbounded, so it depends on what your definition of end is.

>>5878722
>Does the universe ever end?
'End' in the sense that there's some boundary or edge to the Universe? It doesn't.

>What is beyond the observable universe?
More universe.

>>5878959
>More universe.

How can there be more universe outside the universe? A paradox?

>>5880034
>not understanding what "the observable universe" means

>>5878722
the technical "end" to the universe is the furthest the fastest particles could have traveled since the big bang (right now light.)

Energy is the edge.

>>5878722
Okay, this whole fucking thread needs the big disclaimer that:
THE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DATA IS INCONCLUSIVE

But:
No, the universe doesn't end, though it is finite. It is similar to the way there is no "edge" of the world one could fall off of, but the Earth is not infinite in size. Yeah, the universe is three dimensional, so we're talking about a hypersphere or some other sort of extra-dimensional shape, but it's the same idea. There is nothing outside the universe, because there is no "outside."

>>5880290

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

>>5878816
>where do the integers "end?"
But the integers are not real.
I have this fantasy about being a super hero and he will never die even when I do.
but that's just make-believe,like integers.
You didn't actually believe in math and Santa Clause did you?
Sorry little guy!

>>5878749
What should I do? How do I stop them?

>>5880312
>integers are not real
Neither is a universal horizon

>>5880311
>larger than the volume we can directly observe

That's a crazy thing to think about. The volume of the universe. What does it need all that space for?

If there was an edge, or a wall or something, would everything just hit it and bounce off, or phase through or something crazier like the end of this cycle of the universe?

>>5880312
>But the integers are not real.

The integers can be embedded into the field of real numbers.

>>5880707
You don't.

>>5880758
>What does it need all that space for?
There is a lot of matter to fill it up.

>>5878722
let me break this one up:

>spatial end?
No, the universe is topologically closed. Evidence suggests it's spatially infinite, but it could also be repeating, like a 3-sphere/3-torus/etc. (think wrap-around)

>temporal end?
No. Time will continue forever, unless the universe is destroyed by some Undiscovered physical phenomenon (like a colliding brane).

>beyond what we can see in the universe?
More universe. Probably infinite. See spatially infinite.

>beyond the entire universe?
Nothing. Or god. Or an invisible pink unicorn. These are equally meaningful answers to a meaningless question. There is nothing beyond "everything".

>>5880055
How do you know what's outside the observable universe?

>>5884146
Maybe she is able to travel backwards in time.

>>5884868
How would she do this?

>>5878725
>but i heard there were more stars in the universe than atoms.
>stars are made of atoms

/SCI/ IS DEAD

/SCI/ IS DEAD

>>5886141
gtfo summer

God, heaven, and hell.

if i wouldn't stick my tongue in a butt, why would i stick it in this thread?

>>5880290
Is there any better way to understand the idea of the universe being finite but with no edges? Would it require studying topology of some sort?

>>5886304
Or diffy geo.
Any kind of geometry, really.

>>5878722
>What is beyond the observable universe?
More universe

>>5886132
By using secret technology discovered by Tesla.

>>5886422
yes

>>5878722
the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
All of space is expanding, so more space is being created. The galaxies are being spread apart

>>5888558
What is the universe expanding into?

>>5878749
My mom told me slekingtins don't real

>>5878722
I am a strong supporter of the Big Crunch theory.

>>5888842
your mother's sweet asshole

I am a fan of the saying in physics: "If you can't measure it, it doesn't matter." If existence is defined as anything that affects the universe; then, from the point of view of any observer, nothing regarding things outside of the observable universe can be proven. This doesn't mean that there is nothing, it just means that it is impossible to know.
In any uniformly expanding universe with a maximum speed, all forms of information including things like light, gravity, and all matter have a finite traversable range. As a result, any and all observers in such a universe will never be affected by anything outside of their respective observable universe. By definition, anything which does not affect the universe does not exist.
As far as is currently known, we live in a universe which fits this description.

tl;dr -- If X is impossible to know, then X effectively does not exist.

>>5882790
>What does it need all that space for?
>There is a lot of matter to fill it up.
There is a lot of space to fill it up.

>>5889261
So everybody lives in their own universe?
Trippy

>>5888854
There is a spooky skeleton living inside you and mimicking your every movement.

>>5889261
>"If you can't measure it, it doesn't matter."

This principle is closely related to Hitchens' razor. Look it up.

>>5890636
If a thing is true, it's true whether or not the one who asserts it can present evidence.

>>5878722

>Does the universe ever end?
define "end"

>What is beyond the observable universe?
the unobservable universe

Are we talking about the universe or the Universe?

>>5888842

We don't know. That's cutting-edge cosmology. Lots of theories like multiverses, nothing, and other shit.

>>5886304
>>5886348
I'd like to know this too.

>>5890827
The unobservable universe does not exist.

>>5891223
What is the difference?

>>5891380
If you can't see, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

>>5893091
Not this anti-scientific irrationalist troll shit again.

winner

>>5893823
What did he win?

>>5893091
If it has no evidence, it can be considered non-existent. Hitchens' razor.

>>5878739
Skeletons are in every CW complex.

>>5896957
When are they considered spooky?

>>5897797
in dimensions higher than 10

>>5899245
How do we determine the dimension?

>>5899852
With a ruler.and a protractor.

>>5901103
I do not have either of those.

>>5901103
Win.

>>5901876
You should buy them. They are important tools for every serious scientist.

http - htwins - net/scale2/

>>5903287
I have - unfortunately they broke before I could measure anything.

>>5903984
That's sad.

>>5888842
It is not expanding.

>>5878959
why cant we see past the observable universe?

>>5907176

because space is expanding too fast for light on the other side to make it to us

>>5888842
How do you know it's expanding into anything?

>>5895754
Theres no evidence of black holes.

>>5907179
It's not because it's too fast. It's because it's expanding at an accelerating rate.

>>5906277
don't lie, you asshole. space is expanding, and it's accelerating, too.

>>5907390
No it is not and I am not lying. The objects inside of space are simply shrinking.

>>5907305
If that's true, then we will have to dismiss the theory.