The width of the universe

Just read an article by a Professor Neil Kolreich from the university of Montana, who claims that he has established the actual width of the universe at 721 billion trillion light years!

One interesting aspect is that the professor claims there is a great unknown what is beyond the universe as present theories are quite restrictive and haven't progressed as far.

ATS has another discussion on the dimensions of the universe, hope this helps in your study.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

btw- Do you have a link to the information? I love this sort of thing and would enjoy reading the article. Thanks....

I'm not sure what article you were reading but the one I read said 156 billion light years accross and explains how they came up with it.

Link

156; that's the same thing Space.com is reporting.

www.space.com...

It was not an article, I heard the professor live on radio this morning. The reason this type of thing got the publicity is that the prof is Australian thus the Australian radio had him on this morning for an in depth interview.

There are an infinate # of universes, I can;t say the specific length of ours. They are seperates by branes (like membranes....) and when they collide, that creates a "big bang" effect. That might not answer the origional ? but i hope it helps.

Interesting to pose that argument. What is after the universe though? Even if we accept that there are multiple universes, what is outside their realms?

even more indepth, what are inbetween the branes..... probably they shift like subatomic particles and follow those random and mesterious laws, and when one (particle... in this case, universe) becomes unbalanced/unstable it may colide or hit another or a multitude of "universes , or they are just like vibrating puzzle pieces. It is probably a combination of both theories.

By the way I CAME UP WITH ALL THESE IDEAS.

Well this professor seemed to indicate that he was not entirely certain. He stressed that current theories could not go any further. It is very compelling though.

Maybe the Universe is like a four dimensional Mobius strip. It just curves back in on itself.

Here is the CNN "version" of the article:

www.cnn.com...


HowardRoark,
I have never thought of that. Who knows? It could be possible. =-D That one idea is going to be churning in my head all night now, lol.

so does anyone have any theories that can shed some light on what is after the "end" of the universe?

well thats like saying whats after the bubble when it pops.....nothing, its gone. but u blow more and so on and so on


or maybe this universe (or bubble) is all there is, in whitch case i would conclude it will not end but matter will turn into energy then back into matter and so on expanding and contracting forever

are u all familier withe the big crunch theory?

1,482,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 >>> # Of Kilometers across the universe should be.

#Of Years * Unit of Speed (Light year) * 2 (radius * 2 = diameter) = Unit of Distance (kilometers)
(78 Billion Years w/ Acceleration) * 9,500,000,000,000 kilometers/year * 2 = 1,482,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers.

#of Kilometers/Year = 300,000 Kilometers/Second (Approx.) * 60 seconds/1 minute * 60 minutes/ 1 hour * 24 hours/ 1 day * 365 days/ 1 year = 9,500,000,000,000 Kilometers/year (Approx.). All the units cancel out. If we want to find the # of Light years, we simply divide by that number, which is unnecessary, since we logically know it is 156 Billion. Of course, this isn't completely accurate because I haven't got the exact numbers, I'm just using standardised rounded numbers.

Those of you who don't understand my 78 Billion number, look at the links in the posts above.

CMA, You aren't the only one who has thought of that, in fact, most string theorists and cosmologists would agree with you and I now the theory of Ekpyrosis is getting it's run. It sucks to be 15 and a year ahead of the scientific community, since you can't publish papers that well, and don't know the math behind it. Here's a question: Have you pieced it together that the bulk in which our branes fly is really just a small segment of an elongated cylinder - not at all coincidentally the shape of a _string_ ? The # of branes in the bulk and the amount of energy present in it dictate its frequency, the average of all bulk-frequencies along the string should dictate the average frequency of the string, and what particle it helps to make. Keep on thinking, together we, the chillins, can beat Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking, Muaha!

Oh, a reference for my numbers, just incase you need it. Here you go.

Wow. 1 Septillion, 482 Sixillion Kilometers.

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by Viendin]

By the way I CAME UP WITH ALL THESE IDEAS.

Not to be a skeptic here... but I do believe I read stuff just like this in a Discover magazine, and a few other news articles a couple of months ago...

DarkHelmet - This was - just that magazine didn't tell everything it could, and a lot of expansion upon those theories can be done in your own head, easily.

The problem is that everyone is trying to place a begginning and an end.

The way to think of our existence is this:

We exist in a singularity. All universes, all time, all space exists in nowhere. It's hard to swallow, but think of an atomic bomb going off. During that moment when the atoms release the energy, there exists another set of infinite universes. They appear and disappear at an immeasurable speed to our perspective... so fast, in fact, that they really don't exist. To inhabitants of those universes, they exist for billions of trillions of "years".

The only important numbers in math terms are 1, and -1. This is all that is needed to understand infinity as far as actual numbers. The next step is the realization of the impact of these two numbers. IF you have a positive and a negative, you obviously have to have a neuter. In math terms, this neuter is referred to as 0, or nothing... which is, in a sense, the wrong thinking.

1 = positive (relative to the observer)
-1 = negative (relative to the observer)
0 = neuter, or equilibrium... the point where 1 and -1 cross.

During that earlier said explosion, there is a slight imbalance created, or a 'shockwave' of sorts, that disrupts the normal equilibrium point of the particle. This is when things 'exist', when there is that slight offset. Because our little realm of infinite universes combined would all balance out, to an outside observer we wouldn't exist. The point they would have to be at to take all of it in would give the appearance that our realm is one balanced entity, and it doesn't exist to that observer.

In conclusion, everything doesn't exist to any outside observer. We exist in that singularity, at a single moment. There's your outer realms.

Universes aren't sitting side-by-side. They exist in layers... dimensional layers. What separates us is how close or how far away from the equilibrium point we are. There are no 'membranes' that separate universes within a realm. They are actually one, but different properties are in effect at different areas. When someone refers to "God" or the "Source", they are referring to that one point of equilibrium, of which we are all part. As you get closer to equilibrium, the vibrations that allow our existence speed up. Closer to the source, the things we call 'matter' don't exist. As we get farther out, the properties of matter get more complex, and actually have a hard time existing because the wavelength is so great... this is because 'energy' dissapates too much in this area.

In a sense, you could consider that there are 2 points of euilibrium, from our perspective. We are in a 'positive' part of the universe, and as we pass the 'source', we see the 'negative' part of the universe. Black holes feed the source... they compress everything back into a singularity (black holes are an effect of everything trying to balance out). Even though we see multiple black holes, they are all one, dimensionally speaking.

With this, you can see how we can all exist in different dimensions, but the vibrations are close enough that we become aware of eachother. Everything we observe is vibrating within our observable range. We can build machines that can detect different vibrations and translate them for us, but using such machines to determine the width of the universe creates the problem of obtaining a distance from a different dimension, then we apply OUR observable timestamp on it, and it's wrong. Our observable time doesn't apply the same way to other dimensions.

So, I don't think we will ever come to a definite conclusion of the distance of our universe, because we need time in order to measure distance. Since time is only relative to this part of our realm, and the properties change as you move closer to or farther away from the source, the percieved distance is going to change.

So, now you have my theory of waves on this subject, lol... haven't had it fail yet... and if you find any 'inconsistencies', just ask... they are all explainable through this theory (it's actually quite similar to string theory, but string theory has a huge basic flaw... it relies on a starting point that you have to go into reverse to get back to. My wave theory assumes true infinity).

I guess I should also explain something here that my be confusing to some... in philisophical terms, you cannot have black without white. If you have all black with no white, then that black doesn't exist because there is nothing for contrast. If you have nothing to call 'white', then you can't consider that you are even observing black.

We see light because it hits us in 'waves'. it flickers in and out of our perception. When light bounces off of an object, some of the waves can be absorbed by the 'matter' (or, basically, the waves that make up the 'matter' combine with the waves of the light, and some waves just pass through and are broken up so that they are no longer the waves that are observable light to us).

This is the basics of 'wave theory'. See the similarities to string theory? Basically, if you are stuck on the string theory, it can be used the same way... with one modification: we ARE a string. Once you place that, it can become infinite theory.

..No one here has said piddly about a necessary beginning. I'm guessing its time you looked a bit harder at String Theory's latest brainchild, which CMA and I have both mentioned, known as Ekpyrosis. It isn't just one guy's thoughts on life, and it doesn't necessitate a beginning in any way but those yours does.

See, rather than just pulling words out of nowhere and saying 'dimensional waves' and 'layers' etc... And only allowing universes to exist in those fantastical few instances where bombs go off or singularities exist isn't pretty. It isn't consistent.

Ekpyrosis states, though it may not full well know it yet, that our 4 dimensional universe is sitting in a giant space known as a 'bulk'. This 'bulk' contains an incredibly large number of other universes, ranging from 1-4D, and they are given the term 'branes'. The only real 'shape' we could happily ascribe to this bulk is a cylinder - not, as is often thought, a torus. Now, this cylinder has 'finite' bounds. I say finite because there is an edge, just it is similar to the edge of our 4D brane - essentially unreachable and unobservable. To the 'rounded' outer edge, and beyond, we would find the rounded edge of yet another bulk, towards and beyond either of the 'flat' edge, we would cross directly into another bulk. Looking down at a group of bulks collectively, we would see that they resemble a ball of yarn, giant cords sitting on top of each other. Go out a little further and their existence is better realised - strings. One Hydrogen atom has one electron with 3 quarks, one quark has hundreds of millions of strings, one string has hundreds of millions of bulks, one bulk has hundreds of millions of branes, and every brane is an entire universe, filled with a googleplex of a googleplex of atoms. Infinite down, infinite up, and it doesn't mean we have to 'swallow' the concept of living inside 0 space, it doesn't mean we have a beginning or an end, and it is fully and finally consistent. It is perfect.