The edge of the universe

Occam proposes the edge of the universe is not out past the resolution of the hubble scope.
It is WAY closer to home.
Right in the center of this gallaxy.

A horizon

Occam proposes there are untold billions of universes.
All nested
Our universe is a farm.

Occam

 

does occam know that the third person thing sounds remarkably pretentious?

 

Quest

What has that to do with his proposition?
nothing.
You are bored, ignorant, and seek reassurance of your intellect through riddicule of another. no more.
This is a typical reaction from one that does not understand the concepts being spoken of.

Occam has untold precedent from empirical experience.
You a re the 5032nd fool that cannot answer a question without attacking the questioner personally.
When the questioner is irrelevant. And the question ALL.

You want to post on the science forum,, then be scientific.
Not a shit slinging politician looking for acceptance. Basing truth on how good you are at slinging shit...........
that is
Not too good......you are a novice to some occam has met.
Pretentious is but thinking one has merit in thought or act without precedent. Occam never made such a claim. It is your prejudice that calls occams use of personal pronouns a 'pretentious act'

Grow up...boy [or is occam being pretentious, calling an 18 year old a boy?]

Occam

 

oh it's cute how you sound so sincere when you do that.....

 

'You want to post on the science forum, then be scientific'. Now theres some good adivse. I dont want ot be the 5033rd person but I fear I might fail miserably. It reminds me of the person who says 'Im a good driver but I get into so many crashes everyone else is awful', 5032 is a very large number can I suggest a trip to the mirror? Does that make me the 5033rd now?

Anyway onto the science, while Occams razoe is possible the worst pile of tripe ever to be committed to paper ill assume your not William himself. It is possible that the edge of the universe is inside the view of hubble if current geometires of the universe are correct. However we should start seeing multiple images of the same thing in different parts of the sky. Searches have been done and nothing has been found.

 

Is not 'an' edge to this universe.

The event horizon of the singularity at the core of the gallaxy?
That Midnight moonlight mentioned but did not make the connection.

Has not the singularity fallen out of our reality?


Occam

 

because anything that cannot be disproven isn't science

more or less

there are vagueish acceptions but there is actual legitimate evidence to back those up, you just have an idea


I could say I thought the edge of the univers was the very surface of my skin and it would have equal validity....


it's like using a collander as a boat....

 

Fat tony

Please excuse the vitriolic nature of occams reply...
He was a tad pissed.
Normally he would have ignored the comment.

Was not the principle of parsimony, a fundamenntal tenet of science.
Attributed to William of Ockham?

Occam

 

Midnight..

Occam was not being philosophical in the slightest.

Is not the event horizon of that singularity.
"the edge of our universe"

When there is no way we can advance beyond a known location.
Now way past a barrier we cannot even see.
Occam thinks EDGE.
Yes, energy and mater cross the horizon.
[to another universe?]
But in what form?
no physical structure can even come close without being spagettified.
Everything is shredded on the crossing.

Is occam being unreasonable?

Occam

 

If matter and energy can freely cross this hypothetical divide then how does it vary from our own? Ultimately all information is carried in the various properties of particles so if these can pass the divide unperturbed then what you seem to be describing isnt so much a boundary of universes so much as a very fine mesh of cheesewire. All the forces would interact freely with particles on the otherside. If however your implying that information is destroyed then we wouldnt be able to image things on the otherside. So all the distant stars and galaxies must be in our universe, im not sure how such a boundary would appear though its largely irrelevant. The geometry of our universe is a theorised to be a colsed surface (currently a torus but it changes fairly regularly) so it seems unlikely we'll come across a boundary in normal space.

You mention event horizons, these are quite interesting entities. The event horizon of a black hole is very much inside our universe. However the gravitation field strength increases massively resuling in a huge deformation of space-time. The absence to a coherent theory of quantum gravity means that an accurate model of the inside of a black hole does not exist. However superstring theory is showing promise (although currently no test exists). Given that what we do know is that a black hole will reduce very large masses to dimensions around the planck length interaction with higher dimensions are possible (assuming superstring theory to be along the right lines). However I do not know of any coupling to other universes. The only theory I know of that involves numerous universes is the many worlds theory, of which I am not a fan.

 

I disbelieve in an edge to the universe, but feel there's a curvature. As in a circle. The circle is a shape used all throughout nature (tree's, planets, axis rotations, etc). The universe is infinite if one is within, but can be seen as separate and finite if one were looking from the outside. That's my 2 cents.

 

Fat tony

Really?
Have you been to one.
No?

Then you have no idea what you are talking about.
The greatest minds of our world have to 'speculate' when talking of singularities and the horisons of such.

You suggest you KNOW. What an event horizon is.

Crap. You should start refering to yourself in the third person.

Pretentious.

Occam

 

so since you are speculating about the edge of the universe I assume you have then been there?

 

The event horizon is the surface where the gravitational field strength reaches a critical value. That value being the where the escape velocity becomes greater then the speed of light (or so my lecture notes say). Therefore we cannot see inside one. What goes on inside one is anyones guess because as I said no coherent theory yet exists. So interatcion with another universe I guess is possible although most of the theories you come across suggest access to other point of this universe (white holes, wormholes and whatever).

Its probably worth mentioning Hawking radiation at this point. Hawking states that around the event horizon the gravitational field can cause particle-antiparticle pairs (I dont understand the details of this process but it is analogous to traditional pair production). One of these pairs falls further into the hole while the other can escape taking energy from the black hole. The more important issue is whether information is destroyed or whether it is conserved. Hawking at first thought it was destroyed but most people disagreed and now he seems to have accpeted that as well (that bit I got off a TV show in the UK the other day maybe someone else saw it). My personal opinion from this is that the inside of a black hole is still very much an interacting part of our universe, in which conservation laws should be applied otherwise when the black hole evapourates we wont have exactly what we started with. Though this doesnt stop a black hole baing a gateway it was more about event horizon theory.

 

No..occam asked if the event horizon was the egde of reality..asked.

He did not state.. as Tony did.

Occam

 

Tony

Cool.. The event hozizon in occams understanding of the definition matches yours. Also why is the escape velocity greater than light.
It appears , that space is so warped at that radius that all roads lead to rome.
Mater does not seem to have a chance.
It is spagettified by gravitational gradient and conservation of angular momentum combined.

Its not really about what goes into the hole.
It's that nothing comes out.
And that says edge to occam..

Also hawking radiation may have removed the likelyhood of micro holes.
But the big ones will just keep getting bigger.
And may not have a chance to evaporate if the univerce IS cyclic.
Big crunch. Plus we have yet to observe a hole to see if hawking radiation actually exists. Our math may breakdown when we speak of singularities and how they 'may' work.

Also, occam questions the klein bottle view of the universe.
If the outside is the inside. then maybe holes are the edge.

Occam

 

Anything inside the event horizon would need to be travellig faster then the speed of light to escape. But the pair production shown by Hawking can occur at the event horizon and so allow matter to escape albeit in very small quantities. The temperature of a black hole is typically measured in hundreds of nano kelvin. So yes stuff does come out, assuming the theory to be correct which I have to be careful about given the debate about the defintion of science going on parallel to this. But the techniques used have been used and verified elsewhere in physics. So I go back to my previous point about preservation of information. To me an event horizon is a point we cant see past because no light escapes, no more. However I dont see why the laws of physics instantly break down as you pass it. They will begin to become less and less accurate as you pass into stronger and stronger fields becuase quantum mechanical effects on gravity become stronger and stronger. Until in the centre of a black hole where we can currently make no definitive predictions.

 

eheh this is going to be amusing

 

Isn't one of the voyager probes or some such well on it's way to reaching the outermost edge of our solar system, beyond which we know very little about? A horizon in a sense..

 

Well, George thinks that anyone who is going to discover the "truth" about this matter wouldn't be posting it on the hipfora.