I've never seen anything sci-fi that's larger scale

>>17698255
I don't know how to describe as it doesn't make sense. It's like an inside out sphere and once you reach the edge you begin to enter the opposite side. all the edges are actually the center.

>>17698264
what this man/woman says

space is curved so you'll never hit the edge if you go in a straight line, you'll end up where you started eventually

i actually wonder if phasing out of this universe into the container of the multiverse is possible? maybe we're only able to phase into other universes via singularities

i think about what kind of species would be advanced enough to conquer such a feat all the time

>>17698255
Outside of our galaxy there are more galaxies. There are many galaxies in the universe. Just like outside our solar system there are more solar systems.

Approximately 170 billion to 200 billion galaxies exist in the observable universe, according to Wikipedia.

I recommend looking up some free online lectures/courses about astronomy/cosmology and seeing what you can find out that way.

>>17698291
What contains the multiverse then? Are there multiverses of multiverses?

This universe is just a brain cell to an even bigger cosmic diety

>>17698275
So how come we observe an edge? If this was true wouldn't we start seeing far off areas repeat?

>>17698298
Some sort of being or cosmic/organic machine.

We have to be connected to all of this in some way. I mean at some point the "universe" decided to form sentient life. Be it from another source or just on it's own because of the sources intention.. or maybe just on it's own all together.

All we know is for some reason the universe holds beings that can question their own existence. That has to mean something, right?

>>17698309

That's actually a very good question.


I've read the answer for this before a thousand times I just can't remember it off the top of my head, you can find it easily on the webz I know.

>>17698255
First of all, Hitchhiker's Guide books. They clearly explain there's a diner at the edge of the universe/end of time.

>>17698309
Because of the huge time lag due to the finite speed of light, that would probably make a "repeating area" unrecognizable?

>>17698255
>Is It just too difficult to think of?

Well, even the means to travel within our galaxy on a sifi level will prbly never happen due to a warp engine literally needing more energy to work, than there is contained in our whole galaxy (that kind of energy you need if you want to alter space structure on that level).

Now imagine how advanced a civilisationwould need to be to travel between galaxies. That shit is ludicrous. (Just look at the distances between galaxies.

For the edge of the universe: There ain't one. There is one to the "filled" area that slowly expands since the big bang, but after that most scientific hypothesis assume basically eternal blank space. Just a dark, empty waste and nothing more.

>>17698309
What edge? Do you mean the extant of the observable universe? That edge is like shining a flashlight in darkness. The edge of the lightbeam isn't the edge of the environment.

Actually, that "edge" has a number of factors changing it. First, it is expanding as light from further distances reaches us, allowing us to see further. However space - the distance that light has to travel - is expanding. And since every spot in space expands, while light is emitted from a source, that means light from too distant objects will NEVER reach us. And this event horizon of observation is shrinking.

>>17698373
>after that most scientific hypothesis assume basically eternal blank space. Just a dark, empty waste and nothing more.

No. The Big Bang/Expansion Theory holds that space was created in the BB, and that matter fills it fairly uniformly. In fact, the reason it clumped into clusters & galaxies instead of remaining some uniform, state-less muck of matter is an ongoing puzzle.

>>17698373
>Now imagine how advanced a civilisationwould need to be to travel between galaxies. That shit is ludicrous. (Just look at the distances between galaxies.
That only applies now. An advanced civilization in the past would have a significantly easier time moving between galaxies because galaxies were closer together

File: hubble_galaxies.jpg (41KB, 535x484px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 535x484px

>>17699342
They also had significantly less heavy metals and resources for any burgeoning civ.

This is ignoring how far back in time you'd need to go before the distance between galaxies was small enough to no longer pose a serious limiter on travel. And at that point there might not be planets, or even definable galaxies, just massive helium stars forming and exploding in massive blobs of plasma.

>>17699417
Life, uh, finds a way

>>17698255
The universe actually has curvature
For a given point and a line there are infinite lines which pass through the point which are parallel to the other line

>>17699326

You messed that up quite a bit there, anon. Your intentions were good, but you got most of it wrong. I suggest you do a re-cap on a few subjects before it completely goes to shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDmMnSKEYnI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2ksDczJOAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFi9QYnqiYw


>In fact, the reason it clumped into clusters & galaxies instead of remaining some uniform, state-less muck of matter is an ongoing puzzle.

This annoyed me. It's Gravity 101 bro.

>>17698298
Have you seen that episode of Rick n morty where Rick explains that his engine is actually a "micro-verse" inside that micro verse they became so advanced they created their own micro verse n so on.. it's just continuous like minecraft is the best example lol . We are beings of consciousness and that conscious is all connected there will never be an "end" to the universe as it just will continue to create itself as it already has.

>>17699806
.. Sorry, forgot to add..

In the first video Susskind explains what happens at the horizon, why the Universe evolved like it did, and what happens when shit starts moving away from other shit faster than the speed of light (yes that happens).

He also explains why there's infinite Universes.

>>17699326
>an ongoing puzzle.
Actually, that was explained recently by quantum fluctuations. When the universe was really, REALLY fucking young, young enough for quantum fluctuations to matter, after the cosmic inflation took place, these minute changes in density were expanded by several orders of magnitude, ending up being the pockets of matters we have today.

>>17699806
>It's Gravity 101 bro.
I think he meant, why something that theoretically was supposed to be completely uniform, weren't, i.e., why some parts had more mass than others to kick off the aggregation.

>>17698255
There's a lot of controversy about universe expansion/models. There could be no edge and no big bang, no dark energy, no dark matter. These terms are highly correlated, build like a house of cards.

>>17699900
No.

Hubbles Law is definite. The cosmological constant, aka vacuum energy, aka dark energy is real

>>17700025
What about intrinsic redshift in quasars and galaxies which was omitted when calculating whole expansion?

Larry Niven wrote about Galactic Dyson spheres, which are like Dyson Spheres but they surround en entire galaxy.

But it wasn't in any of his sci-fi, but rather his speculative science essays.

File: cosmic_web_3smaller.jpg (68KB, 529x364px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 529x364px

The large scale universe looks like a bunch of filaments, and who knows what it looks like beyond that. These filaments are shaped by dark matter, by the way. That's fucking amazing!

So the universe is a bunch of stuff shaped like filaments in space, slowly building itself piece by piece. What is this? And what do you see in this image? This is surely not the whole structure of the universe. Maybe it's just an infinity of filaments.

That's about as outside as you can see at the moment.

It's easy when you stop using very tiny things as your reference point. Think of your average country and then try to think about all the states and cities and neighborhoods. That's what someone is doing when they look at a galaxy and their head explodes, so it helps to use a different perspective.

>>17698309
We don't see an "edge". We see the point that light can no longer reach us because space is expanding faster than the speed of light. That edge is not real, it's just that we cannot, and will not, ever see anything out there. If you could magically teleport past that "edge", there would just be more universe. And you would recenter the observable universe around you. Think of that edge as a huge sphere around you; within another enormous sphere. Moving around moves the inner sphere.

Eventually because of the bending of space, enough movement will deposit you back in the original spot.

>>17698264
>>17698275
Just like the Asteroids game.

>>17702401
what is past the edge, what if you somehow teleport 10 bilion lightyears infront of the edge? Universe is made up of not nothing, but space-time continuum, what would you then theoretically teleport outside of time? What happens then?

>>17698264
You mean like a donut.

>>17702363
>average country

Let's just say the US. Was going to type "average state" instead and goofed it.

Planets are debris orbiting stars, which are formed by gases. So do gases rule the universe? I mean you could say stars is just a bunch of debris that clumped together like you would with planets.

>>17702737
What created the big bang? What created what created the big bang?

>>17703057
Regular answer: Nobody knows for sure.

/x/ answer: What are you, retarded?

This is all simulation. Life is but a dream.

>>17702455
Imagine you are 2 dimensional being existing on a sphere. If I ask you to find an edge, you will be unable to do so. There is no edge on the surface of a sphere. The surface is a finite, boundless, curved 2d space. But since we are 3 dimensional, we can see an edge. We simply have to use the 3rd dimension and go "up" or "down."

Now extend the metaphor to spacetime. Spacetime (according to one hypothesis) is a THREE dimensional, finite, boundless, curved space. Perhaps 4 dimensional when we include time, I'm unsure at that level and simplifying as it is. But the point is still accurate:

You will ever find an "edge" to space by traveling a 3D vector. However this does NOT mean that space is infinite.

>>17703057
The big bang is a shit theory.

A Boltzmann fluctuation created the event we call "the big bang".

Before the big bang this Universe existed in another configuration. It may have been similar to this one, identical, or totally different.

The Universe has no beginning. Matter cannot be created from nothing.

>>17703135
>The Universe has no beginning. Matter cannot be created from nothing.
That we know of

>>17703140
kys lol

>>17698331
I was thinking exactly this.

>>17703121
Oh fuck off with your curve shit please. Learn some fucking science.

>>17702455
Our Universal horizon is the point at which light and matter is moving away from us at/faster than the speed of light, so we can't see it. In fact, the further away something is from us, the faster it's moving away.

Eventually, ALL matter/light/energy will be moving away FASTER than the speed of light, and vice versa, until the Universe hits a heat death. A minimal state. It will lay dormant like this until a fluctuation occurs and sets off a chain reaction that'll kickstart the Universe into a new formation. A big bang. Rinse and repeat. Over and over.

>yfw this is actual physics.

>>17702455
Anons are wrong. What happens at the edge of the universe is space-time being "created" and anyway, lets assume you get teleported there, since the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing (without the aceleration from dark energy it would be equals to c anyway) you couldnt possibily get past it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDmMnSKEYnI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2ksDczJOAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFi9QYnqiYw

>>17703172
No.. >>17703170 I'm right.

>>17699417
Galaxies were never close anyway, otherwise the gravitational pull would have overcome the acceleration in the expansion of the universe and those galaxies would have collapsed one on the other

>>17703182
No, you are both misunderstanding what I said and what the anon asked and what you said isnt necessarily fitting to the discussion. What happens at the edge of the universe he asked, not of the observable universe.

>>17703194
Oh, well this'll stump ya...

There is no edge.

>>17703182
And its not even that true.. If the universe keeps expanding at a constant rate, even subatomic particles will be ripped apart and there are going to be the most fundamental particles separated from each other by a constantly increasing distance. And were not even sure, because if this acceleration was to stop then all the matter will eventually collapse on itself in a limited region of space, forming an incredibly super massive black hole with all the matter in the universe that whould radiate through gamma ray burts and hawking's radiation expelling all the mass from the production of matter which would be indeed expelled and anti-matter that would be going to annihilate itself with the matter inside the eventi horizon.

>>17698264
It's called a Torus. That's one posibility for how our universe works.

File: BSxuXJb.jpg (52KB, 707x303px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 707x303px

ITT: folks who don't know shit about physics pretending they know shit about physics

>>17703204
No, you are wrong, there is an edge. Where you said "matter is moving away ftl" etc etc, where do you think its moving? Throught space-time, which is what is being created at the edge of the universe, which keeps expanding at a higher rate.

>>17703219
Previous anons, yes

>>17698275
>>17698264
my brain hurts

>>17703210
There's a theory that the matter we think is regular is actually the exception to the rule and it will eventually dissolve back into quarks

>>17703232
It hurts because it is utter made up bulshit

>>17703235
probably what you said about english class

>>17698275
so to hit the edge you have to curve your route in the opposite direction. So therefore moving through space with a curve to your route should resolve as a straight line. Simple astrophysics.

>>17703233
Yeah, the problem about this branch of phisics is that as it always happened, we have no tools to verify this theories so its quite just speculation deducted from other data we have.. But yet we dont know neither what dark energy is and why it seems that the universe keeps expanding at an increasing rate instead of decreasing, or what dark matter is and why its interaction is not detectable, just that keeps galaxies from expelling start balancing their momentum and creating fucking optical effects (gravitational lenses)

Sometimes I think I should really go to a physics university instead of engineering, but yet again if we cant provide us humans with tools that can verify our speculation, who's gonna do it? (Certainly not me anyway, but whatever)

>>17703242
Probably

>>17703242
And probably because I'm not English and my smartphone autocorrects every fucking word making spelling errors

File: ciencias.png (166KB, 897x895px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 897x895px

>>17703210
Particles?

>he doesn't know

Ok. This is a turning point for you, anon. You will remember this forever, so I won't be a dick about it.

Particles, eg the Electron pic related, are NOT real. It's a quantized model of a Wave. An "Electron" is a wave, not a particle. The Universe is a mish-mash of Fields, we measure waves on these fields and call them "Particles". There aren't actually little balls of energy flying around everywhere called Electrons.

Eg, The Higgs Boson. Scientists smashed together protons with so much force that they disturbed the Higgs Field and created a "bump".. which we call.. The Higgs Boson.

An "Electron", is a wave on the "Electron Field". You're allowed to call them Particles, but don't make the mistake in thinking that things are made out of little balls that look like solar-systems.

Here, Sean Carroll explains it better..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwdY7Eqyguo

>>17703267
It could be argued that the heat death theory and the matter dissolution theory are the same, or at least they have the same end result. A uniform universe with no atomic matter.

There are a lot of people in this thread who absolutely need to take the EdX series on Astrophysics.

No, really. Take it. It's free.

>>17703210
>>17703281
... Therefore.. particles don't get "ripped apart", the field still exists everywhere. The Higgs is a scalar field that never hits 0, as are many. Even in a vacuum.

>>17703281
>>17703300
OK, I could have explained myself better, but, bro, where breaking the point past which its starting to be a semi-flame war based on misunderstanding and misinterpretations of terms...
I perfectly know the dualistic properties of energy, which anyways are indeed dualistic, an electromagnetic waves which sometimes behaves like a particle (in the macroscopic) and I perfectly know what the higgs field is (the field responsible of the mass of the w+, w- and z bosons, while photons dont interact with it therefore no mass).
Anyway what I meant by "the particles would get ripped" was that individual neutrons, protons and electrons would suffer from such an acceleration that the strong force would not be able to keep their subatomic particles together anymore. And yes, it is right to say that energy is indeed a particle, or better that energy is neither a particle nor a wave but something that behaves both ways. And it is indeed right since subatomic particles, which are part of the standard model, are indeed called like that.

That being said, I am sorry if I appeared to be rude before, it wasnt my intention and I didnt want to start this intellectual kind of flame war. That being said I am now going to sleep since it's 2.20 AM here and tomorrow I have to study because of a fucking test of philosophy on Freud, sartre, bergson, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Shlick and other three dudes with an unspeackable name which one of them seems to be a fucking pokemon

>>17703300
>that being said
I need to sleep or else I'm dying

>>17698309
All these anons are right but ill try to explain in a little less wordy way.

So obviously you're familiar with the fact that light has a finite speed

Picture you're in a vast, dark field, holding only a small lantern. You can only see as far as that lantern will reach.

On Earth we can literally only see the parts of space that are less than a few billion light years away because the light from anything farther away hasn't reached us. The true edge of the universe, if such a thing can be thought to exist, is outside of our circle of light in the field.

>>17703386
Kek

Go to bed.

>>17703219
My physics professor said that everything we know besides gravity is a lie and that itd take 200 years to get a response back from the aliens in the next solar system

>>17698305
We are the cancer of this entity.

>>17705591
Perhaps it is a good thing we are too insignificant to cause any real damage.

At some point, these oh so massive scales get boring. We couldn't even possibly imagine something as big as a galaxy. Words can express that but not the mind that reads these words.

It's like overpowered anime characters, the bigger, more powerfull it gets, the more it's boring.


Plus gravity and a buncha other scientific things would make such objects/beings impossible to exist.

>>17702455
Thats a hard question to answer with something absolutely correct. I don't even know if it can be answered properly, because we are imagining moving in an absolute straight vector through proper space in an instant. No expansion, no nothing. 1 instant movement beyond the farthest "edge" of not just the observable universe, but the whole thing.

And I don't think that movement is possible. That movement would essentially be crossing into another dimension. Crossing Newtonian space like that does not work like just drawing a point between 2 lines.

I don't fully know the answer to that question. I don't think there is an actual "edge" to speak of. I think no matter where you transit, the farther you go the closer you end up coming back to where you started.

It's space-time dude. You cannot think of it in normal human ways. It is its own thing. Space is not nothing. It's something. There is something there can be bent, warped and fucked with.

I'm only a minor in astronomy. I don't know shit. I took it because it was interesting. YouTube is FULL of amazing smart men who can explain it better than me.

File: hypercube.jpg (122KB, 628x1000px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 628x1000px

Hypercube.

File: 1457726133681.png (39KB, 321x322px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 321x322px

>>17702393

>>17706101
my first thought, thanks anon

>>17706068
To get beyond the theoretical edge of the universe you would need to move faster than the expansion from a starting point near the theoretical edge.

With our current understanding of physics and our tech level that is impossible and it may always be impossible, especially because the rate of universal expansion is accelerating over time.

As far as I know, the shape of the universe is unknown beyond it being flat (no non-gravity distortions in space) within observed distances and possibly asymmetric.

It's fun to think about but we'll probably never know outside of simulation.

File: No you dumbass.jpg (16KB, 200x186px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 200x186px

>>17703281
>when he started talking about fucking jugaloos...

[SA flashbacks]