Is there anything beyond the universe?

Paul Sutter provides an interesting report here. I note about complex math and predictions like the universe diameter some 90 or 93 billion light-years across or even a multiverse our universe is embedded in. Special Relativity prohibits this immense space from observation today on Earth (limited to at most 13.8 billion light-years distance from Earth or just less than 28 billion light-years diameter). The debate between geocentric astronomy and heliocentric solar system astronomy used math too but the debate over the heliocentric solar system required necessary observation to support and confirm. At the moment this appears to be abandoned in some areas of cosmology or largely abandoned. Without necessary demonstration to confirm, what does all the complex math represent? In my opinion, a belief system until the scientific method confirms.

Paul Sutter discusses the flat universe model too in this report. If you use the cosmology calculators, an open universe model can collapse 2 billion years or more off the Hubble time for the age of the universe. Complex math can work wonders here :)

This Wikipedia report illustrates something about the 90-93 billion light-year diameter universe in the BB model.

GN-z11 is about 13.4 billion light-years away (light travel distance) but its *present proper distance* is some 32 billion light-years away. Apply the same standards to this as took place between geocentric vs. heliocentric solar system. At the present, this cannot be done to confirm such a distance for GN-z11 from Earth or even if it still exists in space. When it comes to cosmology, more transparency is needed for the public I think.
Last edited:
Jan 6, 2021
[QUOTE = "Administrador, publicación: 538300, miembro: 1"]
¿Qué hay más allá de los límites conocidos? ¿Qué hay fuera de los límites del universo? La respuesta es ... bueno, es complicado.

¿Hay algo más allá del universo? : Lee mas
El problema está en la creencia general de que el universo surge de la nada. Pero esta no existe, es solo un concepto, de ella no puede surgir nada ni siquiera virtual. La creencia de que había un 50% de probabilidades entre que hubiera algo o nada está equivocada: Solo podría haber algo porque si hubiera nada ya sería algo. Se confunde la nada con un vacío absoluto pero este es algo, aunque fuera un espacio sin referencias. Por tanto debemos expandirnos sobre algo no demostrable: una especie de vacío con campos de partículas taquiónicas o inflatónicas ilimitado, que ha existido siempre y que no cesa de producir universos que se expanden en su interior sin interaccionar con él.

Google Translated:
The problem is in the general belief that the universe arises out of nowhere. But this does not exist, it is only a concept, nothing can emerge from it, not even virtual. The belief that there was a 50% chance that there was something or nothing is wrong: There could only be something because if there were nothing it would already be something. Nothingness is confused with an absolute emptiness but this is something, even if it were a space without references. Therefore we must expand on something not demonstrable: a kind of vacuum with unlimited tachyonic or inflatonic particle fields, which has always existed and which does not cease to produce universes that expand inside without interacting with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
May 1, 2021
I don't believe there is a 'beyond' the universe in the sense of there being an infinite void beyond the expansion. I don't believe in voids. I look at it from an 'everything in existence' perspective. Reality is everything in existence and everything in existence is essentially eternal (finite) energy.

The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. What that means is reality is not only eternal. it is finite. The words 'infinite' and 'eternal' are often misused. I also sit here and scratch my head when a leading physicist speculates that the universe came from nothing. In order for anything to exist, something had to have always been in existence. That to me is common sense. Perhaps those in the 'something from nothing' camp start with zero in their equations. That might explain it. When you're dealing with everything in existence in an equation, you start with one, not zero. The number '1' represents everything within eternal reality.

It's hard for us to wrap our heads around a reality that had no beginning and will have no end. It's also is hard to imagine there is no 'beyond' reality, which would mean voids are figments of the imagination.

In order for energy to remain in existence, it needs time and space to remain energetic. The way I see it, energy creates its own time and space in ways seemingly too complex for us to grasp. We don't know how many dimensions there are and are just beginning to understand quantum mechanics.

I see the universe as being part of a multi-dimensional reality. In other words, the fabric of our space-time apparently interacts with the fabric of another dimension within the fabric of reality. All of these fabrics are full of energy. Whether there are other universes like ours or one universe connected to all the other dimensions within reality is unknown by us, but not necessarily unknown by vastly superior beings. That would explain all the physics-defying UFO's that are being reported. Vastly superior beings could have been exploring space before we launched our first rocket. They may be able to utilize other dimensions and quantum mechanics to exceed the speed of light and bypass the laws of physics as we know them.
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
To approach the original question, or any question, we need to understand the boundary science self-imposes. If something is beyond all our imagination in being tested (ie measured) in any way, then this is not science, but, perhaps, psuedoscience or maybe metaphysics, at best.

Article....It could be that our three-dimensional universe is embedded in some larger, multidimensional construct. That's perfectly fine and is indeed a part of some exotic models of physics. But currently, we have no way of testing that, and it doesn't really affect the day-to-day operations of the cosmos.
[my bold]
So the word "physics" here should be taken as "physics'-like" since physics is science and models, exotic or otherwise, require testing to be considered within the bounds of science.

Indeed, this requirement is implied with another statement later in the article...

Article....In fact, asking "What's outside the universe?" is like asking "What sound does the color purple make?" It's a nonsense question, because you're trying to combine two unrelated concepts.
Agreed. It's more than difficult to see what is unobservable, even in principle. :)

So it's, at best, unclear how the prior statement could claim that an extra-Universe "construct" could be considered "perfectly fine" and part of physics.
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe


"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
To quote the article itself on this question:

To answer the question of what's outside the universe, we first need to define exactly what we mean by "universe." If you take it to mean literally all the things that could possibly exist in all of space and time, then there can't be anything outside the universe. Even if you imagine the universe to have some finite size, and you imagine something outside that volume, then whatever is outside also has to be included in the universe.
Quote My emphasis.

If you agree with that definition, than that is End of Subject.

If you don't agree then I respectfully suggest that you preface any comment with your definition of "Universe".

Cat :)