How Vast is the Cosmos?
by Robert Lawrence Kuhn (9/27/10 8:55 pm)
Since childhood, I’ve wondered about existence—what is it all about? Now, having explored many things but being no surer (and feeling no smarter), I start anew. Is there anything of transcendental knowledge, I ask myself, which I can know for sure?
For me, it’s the enormity of the cosmos. It stops my breath.
Everyone knows that the universe is huge, but no one could have imagined how incomprehensively immense the universe, or multiple universes, may actually be. Physicist Alan Guth, who revolutionized cosmology with inflation theory—which describes how space expanded exponentially in a fleeting fraction of a second and culminated in the big bang—believes that our universe is at least 1023 times larger than our observable universe (because inflation requires at least 100 doublings). This means that our universe, which Guth calls a “pocket universe” (defined as an entity whose space all inflated together), is 100 billion trillion times larger than everything we can see with our largest telescopes.
All the vast expanse of our visible universe is but an insignificant speck in Guth’s inflating universe, which itself is only one pocket universe among an innumerable or even infinite number of other pocket universes. In almost all theoretical models, once inflation starts, it never seems to stop because the inflation-driven expansion of space is always faster and greater than the local decays into pocket universes.
If, indeed, the cosmos is unimaginably immense, the person who has given us new eyes to see it is physicist Andrei Linde, who dramatically expanded the power and significance of inflation theory. Linde’s universe grows chaotically and eternally. When he was first studying inflationary theory, he came up with numbers like 10800 or 101,000 for estimating the degree to which the real size of the universe is larger than its apparent size (i.e., the observable universe), and he was always apologizing (in those early days) for the seemingly absurd scales. Then, his continuing work led inexorably to the wild and putatively outrageous idea that the size may be 101,000,000 or 101,000,000,000 larger than we can see. That’s a billion zeros to define the extent of our universe, a billion orders of magnitude larger than our observable universe, a number that is so large it has no name. (Remember, the number “1 billion” has only nine zeros; this number has a billion zeros.)
Here’s how the enormity of the cosmos really hit me. When, some years ago, I first read Linde’s papers, I was frustrated because he never seemed to use units of measure when giving these numbers. It wasn’t 101,000,000 “meters” or “centimeters”; it was just a naked 101,000,000. Finally it hit me—with a wallop. Units don’t matter!
What, units don’t matter? That sounds ridiculous, but that’s right, and here’s why. What’s the largest possible unit of measure that we can use? How about the radius of the observable universe, which is approximately 1028 centimeters? What’s the smallest possible unit? How about the Planck length, which is approximately 10-33centimeters? Now, what’s the order of magnitude of the difference between the largest possible and smallest possible units? The answer is obvious: about 1061. That’s 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. This means the observable universe is about 1061Planck lengths.
How does this number match up? No matter its obvious immensity, 1061 isn’t even a rounding error, not even a micro-speck, when compared to 101,000. When compared with 101,000,000or 101,000,000,000, 1061 (or 61 orders of magnitude), the unit extremes of our universe, are utterly insignificant. Far, far, far less than a single grain of sand compared to all the sand on all the lands on all the planets in all the (observable) universe. Whether the units are radii of the universe or Planck lengths will have no impact on these colossal numbers. It was when I got this point—that human kinds of units are immaterial when contemplating cosmic vastness—that I began to realize how really vast the cosmos may be.
This is only the beginning of cosmic immensity. Linde began to realize that inflation may be “eternal,” meaning that inflation will forever create new universes of immense size. If so, this would mean that our universe, whether 101,000 or 101,000,000,000 times larger than we can see, is still only our own “balloon universe,” the one in which we find ourselves, the one among many. The entire cosmos would be an infinite collection of such balloons, an infinite number of gigantic universes.
It is enormity beyond comprehension. I am overwhelmed. But still it doesn’t end. Physicist Max Tegmark suggests there may be other ways reality has become unimaginably larger and that truly “parallel universes” may really exist. The most famous mechanism is “quantum branching” in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where at every observation or at every tick of Planck time (approximately 10-44 seconds), all reality splits into parallel worlds. The permutations become staggering. Not yet content, Tegmark goes further still and suggests that perhaps every kind of consistent mathematical structure, which forms the fundamental laws of physics, may actually exist and generate complete worlds (even if most are empty or simple).
Put simply, whatever can exist, does exist. Harvard University philosopher Robert Nozick called it “the principle of fecundity” and Princeton University philosopher David Lewis called it “modal realism.” Going all the way out, Lewis said: “I advocate a thesis of plurality of worlds, or modal realism, which holds that our world is but one world among many. There are countless other worlds…so many other worlds, in fact, that absolutely every way that a world could possibly be is a way that some world is.”
Now note this carefully: All of Guth’s infinite “pocket universes” and all of Linde’s infinite “balloon universes” are, taken all together, but one of Tegmark’s vast number of “mathematical worlds” and but one of Lewis’ “plurality of worlds.”
Do unlimited worlds make sense? I’d probably go with physicistPaul Davies who says, “two cheers for the multiverse.” He is prepared to accept that the cosmos is significantly larger than the totality of what we see, that there may be other regions of space and time different from what we observe, “other universes if you like.” But he does not believe that “all possible universes are out there,” which he says would be “contradictory and absurd.”
So, how vast is the cosmos? Whenever we’ve set its limits, it was always too small. The cosmos didn’t change, of course, but our feeble vision of it surely did. The more we learn about the cosmos, the larger it becomes, and the smaller we seem. But, perhaps, for one thing: We understand it and we marvel at it.
Anyone contemplating the big questions of existence must confront the staggering size of our universe and the real possibility of multiple universes without number or limit. This is not science fiction; this is our cosmic home. Simply appreciating the ineffable enormity of the cosmos is already closer to truth.
+ view all Discussions (8)
The Quaternion Universe:
The Universe is finite, its minimum size is around 158E24meters, its mass around 2E53kg and its power is 3645E49 watts.
Dark Energy and Redshift Revealed.
Every spec of mass moving in the Universe has a vector momentum P=mv and an energy cmV, a vector energy.
The Energy is W=-vh/r + cP= -mGM/r + cmV = -vp + cP
Energy is a Quaternion quantity, consisting of a scalar/potential energy, -mGM/r and a vector/kinetic energy cP=cmV .
The vector energy is the momentum energy, cP, the "so-called Dark Energy".
This vector energy produces the anti-gravity centrifugal force, the divergence of the vector energy Div.cP= -cp/r cos(PR).
The redshift is the balance between the centripetal gravity force and the centrifugal momentum force, vp/r. When the two forces are in balance, there is "continuity Condition.
Force F = [d/dr, Del] [-vh/r, cP]
F = [vp/r - cDel.P, cdP/dr =Del vh/r + cDelxP]
F = [vp/r - cp/r cos(PR), -cp/r 1P + vp/r 1R + cp/r sin(PR) 1H]
At Continuity Condition: vp/r - cp/r cos(PR)=0 thus v/c=cos(PR) the derivation of redshift.
At Equilibrium v/c=cos(PR)=1 and sin(PR) =0 and v/c=1 or v=c at Equilibrium.
The Universe is Bounded or Invariant at v=c and r=GM/c^2.
The energy W - -vh/r + cP for
Photons with v=c;
Mass with v^2= GM/r; and for
Charges with v-=Zac where Z is atomic number and
a= alpha= 7.2E-3.
Thus for atoms, v= c gives zac=c means Za=1 thus Z=1/a <138,
meaning no atomic number larger than 138.
The Universe is composed of Quaternions, ala William Rowan Hamilton. Quaternions are a proper 4 D Space, unlike Minkowski's Space-time.
The Universe is contains Quaternion quantities,Q= [s,V] and needs Quaternion Calculus, X= [d/dr, Del] the rule is
XQ = [d/dr,Del][s,V] = [ds/dr - Del.V, dV/dr + Del s + DelxV].
Posted 4:05 PM / January 22, 2013
In PicoPhysics we view the universe to be composed of two realities. Space and Knergy (pronounced as Kay-energy). Knergy is host reality of Konservation concept. Konservation concept by itself is conservation minus neutralization. This enables distinction between matter and charge.
While Knergy being Konserved is Finite, Space is not konserved and hence measures to infinite.
Universe is seen as a five dimensional reality - a synonium to unary law 'Space Contains Knergy'.
The series of arithmatic numbers have been extended to include transfinit numbers by Greog Cantor in his set theory. From this set, in picophysics it is established that only a subset can be used as a measure of reality (either space or knergy - since only two realities exist in nature).
With above setup, we can answer the question:
How vast is cosmos?
What does vast mean? Does it mean when we measure one dimension of universe using a given unit of measure, what is the maximum number that is its magnitude representation. The answer is: If the dimension is spatial dimension it is number infinite, which is defined by equation;
Infinity = Infinity + any Finite Number
Infinity = Infinity - any Finite Number
If the dimesion is one of the two dimensions of Energy or Time, They are related to each other as;
Energy X Time = Finite Number X Plank's constant
Here the finite number represents the amount of Knergy constituting the object under observation located in space.
Thus above approach does tell us the vastness of the universe.
Human observation power is limited. Thus by intuition, or using intuitive logic, one can not arrive at a number for vastness.
It is understood that mainstream physics is charmed by this idea 'vastness of universe' as it will enable it to time the occurrence of Big Bang in the past. But Big Bang is a non-proven concept and not acceptable proposition for origin of universe.
Please view and comment on 5-dimensional universe at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1326 where in you will find further details on the reasoning as above.
Thanks & Regards,
Posted 3:05 PM / August 01, 2012
THE GREAT PULL
My theory is that the universe is a recycling system. There is dark energy all around us and going through us. The universe is full everywhere with dark energy. It is traveling at such a speed we can not feel it or see it or calculate it. We are being pulled along into space by dark energy, that is why we are in constant motion nothing ever stops. We have to expand. When the dark energy is pulled into a black hole it is so fast and so intense with such power that we cannot see it. The speed is so fast that it pulls it down to the smallest of universes where the power is so intense it makes dark matter. Then it has to explode into a big bang and when that happens we get sprayed out into dark energy and get pulled along until we are combined into us. We are the dark matter. I think this has been going on for ever. As space is infinite. There is nothing to stop the energy it is always on the move. It has always been here. To relate to a big bang it would be like all the energy built up in your mind and body to have an orgasm in the brain a big bang and at the same time the ejaculation would be the spray of matter that is spit out into space which became us. It's all about energy and how fast it moves. With the speed of energy it has to make matter. It is the pull of energy that keeps us alive. That made us. And we are still in the pull. I believe that we are the only beings like us in the universe. As with constant motion, being on the move all the time our combination to make us was at our exactness. The recipe to make us humans was at a precise exact moment for us to become. That moment has past as we are always in the pull into space. With constant motion there is no way that our recipe could belong to anyone else but us. At that precise moment on the run in the dark energy with the pull we became. Whatever else became we don't know. But their exactness will never be like ours. It just can't be. Different space, different time, different recipe. We are the only humans like us.
Posted 8:17 PM / March 16, 2012
You must log in to post a comment.
Can Religion Be Explained Without God?
Most people believe that God exists and religion is God’™s revelation. But some claim that religion needs nothing supernatural; that religion, without God, can flourish because personal psychology and group sociology drive religion.
- Arguing God From First Cause, by Alister McGrath
- How are Brains Structured?
- Arguing God's Existence, by Alvin Plantinga
- Why a Fine-Tuned Universe? by Robin Collins
- Do Persons Have Souls? by Nancey Murphy
- Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
- Does God Make Sense? by V.V. Raman
- How Vast is the Cosmos?
- Is there Life after Death?
- Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?
Current TV Episodes - Summaries.
The 39 episodes in the current TV season: 13 episodes each for Cosmos, Consciousness, God.
Closer To Truth overview. Go behind the scenes and meet the CTT team. View photos from around the globe and more.
Additional material and resources on Closer To Truth topics.
Visit SciTech Daily: the best intelligent, informed science & technology coverage and analysis daily.