Actually, Chimera, Reimann isn’t the one who said “wrong”, you are. He’s been polite and did take the trouble to write out some pretty detailed actual, productive answers – and, though I got my astronomy degree decades ago, he seems to me to be correct.
“Bubble” is an analogy, but it breaks down when one considers “edges”. There really aren’t any.
I think perhaps you should reread my comments and reconsider this response. Where was I remotely insulting or mocking? I pointed out quite simply and neutrally that your premise of the expansion having edges is a misconception, which it is - a common one. I have then taken the trouble to write out an extensive follow-up comment describing an analogy that I know has helped others in the past, and that I thought might be helpful to you.
What, exactly, are you looking for?
Perhaps it’s your own attitude that needs some rethinking here?
Your first response was to tell me my premise was wrong. Unhelpful when you don’t explain why. The second one is to tell me I’m wrong and you’ll respond later.
Honestly, both responses are unhelpful. You could have waited until you had that third response ready.
There’s a pretty good article on Wikipedia entitled “Big Bang” that lays the whole thing out simply enough. Here’s a quote:
“The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space.”
Well, then, I apologize for taking the time to try to give you a helpful explanatory response, but not doing it quite on a schedule that suited you.
Again, where exactly was I mocking or insulting, please?
Moderator Note
Chimera, as far as I can see the responses you have received so far have been polite and informative. I think you need to be less defensive and less snarky if you are going to ask questions here. Dial it way back.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Yes, if a question contains an inherent misconception, then it is impossible to answer the question without first correcting the misconception. Which Riemann did.
Here’s a good simple article about the concept of the “edge of the universe”:
Ok, this makes sense and tells me where my premise is wrong.
Are there models where there is a larger, older “Universe” and our singularity/Universe is merely a new manifestation spreading out into that existing universe? I know there’s a couple of scifi universes where they posit this. I’m blanking on some of them but I know the Well of Souls series is essentially like this, in that when they destroy the universe to reboot it, there are remnants of an older universe still around.
I also recall reading something last year where they posited something like this, where if a new universe were to spring into existence near us, we wouldn’t detect it until it hit us, potentially rewriting our local laws of physics and the like.
I’m not suggesting that is the way it works, just asking about the idea and if that’s just science fiction or some actual theory somewhere.
Reimann,
I still don’t like the idea of being told I’m wrong twice without any actual answer*, but thank you for the one you did provide. Yes, it does help.
Eternal inflation models are something like that, but it’s more that our universe is a region which (almost) stopped expanding, relative to the background which is still expanding ludicrously quickly. It’s actually quite an elegant little model, which is unfortunately completely impossible to test experimentally or observationally.
Right, it’s kind of like those stars they find that they say appear to be older than the observable universe. You can’t really prove that they are, as the means you’re using to determine that could be flawed and the star properties you’re using to determine that could be compromised by other things in its past.
If you’re incapable of taking a step back and discerning how inappropriate your reactions have been here, all I can suggest is that you come back and reread the thread tomorrow with a fresh eye. In the meantime, I suggest we return to the topic at hand.
Thanks. More ¯_(ツ)_/¯, but still informative.
Moderator Note
As I said, your responses here were inappropriate. Let’s drop any further discussion of the matter.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
nm
Also, if anyone thinks the size of the solar system or the galaxy or the observable universe is humbling, they ain’t got nothing on eternal inflation. Relative to the rest of the universe, the observable universe is shrinking exponentially at a rate of perhaps 10[sup]60[/sup] per second. For me at least, this is somehow more disturbing than a truly infinite universe.
Just to make us feel a bit better, remember, that you are always the center of an infinite universe.
Does this mean that the furthermost-away things that earth’s astronomers can observe now are becoming farther away, so that eventually future generations of astronomers will no longer be able to observe them?
That seems to be implied by an ever-expanding universe, but I don’t think it’s correct. There seems to constantly be more information discovered about farther-away things. Is that just a function of us developing better quality instruments?
So did Pope Paul V.
And got rather upset when Galileo told him it wasn’t so.