Question What are the limits of our universe?

Is there an end to the Universe...ie outer limits, and if so...what is beyond that?
It is to my understanding that most people think and or believe space dimensions & time dimensions are the things which make a universe what it is however I do not believe that this idea defines a complete & thorough truth. I believe that space dimensions & time dimensions are the components of a universe but I do not believe that they are universes in them selves. Rather I believe that a universe is something much more fundamental than what they will ever be and the reason I believe this is quite simple. You see it is to my understanding that in order for an object to exist it must first be possible for it to exist & as such there must be something which defines that object as being possible even if that object itself does not yet exist. In other words I believe that before our space dimension can exist there must first be something which defines our space dimension as being possible. In turn I believe that this thing is a universe of energy or quanta*. Think about it! Does energy or quanta exist because the fabric of our space dimension exists or does the fabric of our space dimension exist because energy or quanta exists? Or more importantly does energy or quanta exist because our universe exists or does our universe exist because energy or quanta exists? So when you ask the question above are you asking, Is there an end to our space dimension...ie outer limits, and if so...what is beyond that or are you asking, Is there an end to our universe of energy/quanta...ie outer limits, and if so...what is beyond that?

(* This idea is quite neat because it suggests that energy or quanta is responsible for defining the laws of our encapsulating reality, which includes temporal distortion. )
 
IMO the universe has a foggy end in a endless sea of universes.
One dot in infinity.
Hey voidpotentialenergy do you think that it would be proper to describe our universe as having a top level end result of being 1 universe & that while this top level end result does define our universe as having bounds these bounds don't necessarily mean that our universe itself is finite? This is a question that I've been struggling to answer.
 
Hey voidpotentialenergy do you think that it would be proper to describe our universe as having a top level end result of being 1 universe & that while this top level end result does define our universe as having bounds these bounds don't necessarily mean that our universe itself is finite? This is a question that I've been struggling to answer.
I like to think of our universe as just the result of potential energy.
Nothing becomes quantum fluctuation, unbalanced fluctuation creates and clumps particles and attracts others to one location,universe size black hole, waiting for a expansion of another to start expansion phase (big bang).
Cannibal universes and chaos at the very start of it all.

Probably same thing happened in endless places so in my mind we are just one.
If we are everything it's difficult to start a big bang.
With an infinite semi chaotic system other big bangs can start ours.
Us in a big bang phase probably says we are one of infinity.

My guess is we are in infinity but our universe is a dot in it.
Makes that (final frontier) saying rather silly :)
 
I like to think of our universe as just the result of potential energy.
Nothing becomes quantum fluctuation, unbalanced fluctuation creates and clumps particles and attracts others to one location,universe size black hole, waiting for a expansion of another to start expansion phase (big bang).
Cannibal universes and chaos at the very start of it all.

Probably same thing happened in endless places so in my mind we are just one.
If we are everything it's difficult to start a big bang.
With an infinite semi chaotic system other big bangs can start ours.
Us in a big bang phase probably says we are one of infinity.

My guess is we are in infinity but our universe is a dot in it.
Makes that (final frontier) saying rather silly :)
What I believe and or theorize is actually quite simular to what you're saying. I believe that our universe is derived of energy or quanta but Itheorize that this energy/quanta is a specialized form of quantum information. In turn this SFQI is said to contain all the polarized quantum information required to cause the physical manifestation of all possible combinations and or permutations of all polarized quantum fluctuations. The trick to here is that this SFQI is said to have a state of being in which its polarized quantum fluctuations can be in a state of cancelation or in a state of uncancelation. In turn when this SFQI's polarized quantum fluctuations are in a state of cancelation this SFQI itself is said to be in the state of being as polarized quantum nothing. But when this SFQI's polarized quantum fluctuations are in a state of uncancelation this SFQI itself is said to be in the state of being as polarized quantum something aka a space dimension & matter.
 
Jan 26, 2020
4
0
10
Visit site
Our universe is young which is in its period to reach the point of completion . We are inside and through process of change which are determined by sequences of Cause and an efffect which are the supply of the destiny ...
 
What I believe and or theorize is actually quite simular to what you're saying. I believe that our universe is derived of energy or quanta but Itheorize that this energy/quanta is a specialized form of quantum information. In turn this SFQI is said to contain all the polarized quantum information required to cause the physical manifestation of all possible combinations and or permutations of all polarized quantum fluctuations. The trick to here is that this SFQI is said to have a state of being in which its polarized quantum fluctuations can be in a state of cancelation or in a state of uncancelation. In turn when this SFQI's polarized quantum fluctuations are in a state of cancelation this SFQI itself is said to be in the state of being as polarized quantum nothing. But when this SFQI's polarized quantum fluctuations are in a state of uncancelation this SFQI itself is said to be in the state of being as polarized quantum something aka a space dimension & matter.
I agree, and it quite an easy process for a void to have potential energy from just occupying nothing but space.
Easy to imagine quantum fluctuation just being the product of it and easy to imagine how instead of particle cancellation like we have now that before the (e) balance we have particle creation that stays.

Also dark (e) and Dark (m) just products of temporary (e) balance.?
Temporary energy from temporary particle creations and temporary Matter from temporary particle creations in quantum fluctuations.
It exists for temporary lengths of time all across the universe.
I really have to sit down and do the math on it but getting info on how often temp particle creation happen for a defined area is difficult to pin down.
Then guessing at the real size of the universe makes it a educated guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjgelle
I agree, and it quite an easy process for a void to have potential energy from just occupying nothing but space.
Easy to imagine quantum fluctuation just being the product of it and easy to imagine how instead of particle cancellation like we have now that before the (e) balance we have particle creation that stays.

Also dark (e) and Dark (m) just products of temporary (e) balance.?
Temporary energy from temporary particle creations and temporary Matter from temporary particle creations in quantum fluctuations.
It exists for temporary lengths of time all across the universe.
I really have to sit down and do the math on it but getting info on how often temp particle creation happen for a defined area is difficult to pin down.
Then guessing at the real size of the universe makes it a educated guess.
So you don't think it's crazy to think of energy or quanta as being a specialized form of quantum information?
 
Isaac Asimov once described what he referred to as the Observable Universe. Consider that the Universe as we know it is expanding. Also consider that the further away a give point is, the faster it is moving relative to the observer.

And easy way to demonstrate this is to imagine three points, A, B, and C., in a straight line, equidistant apart. From A to B is 1 billion miles, from B to C is 1 billion miles. Then, from A to C is 2 billion miles. If A is moving away from B at 1000m/s, and B is moving away from C at 1000m/s, then C is moving away from B at 1000m/s,, but moving away from A at 2000m/s. The further away a give point is, the faster it is moving relative to the observer.
At some point distant from the observer, objects are moving at c relative to the observer, and objects more distant are moving at faster than c relative to the observer. Therefore, any object moving at more than c relative to the observer can no longer be seen by the observer because that light can never travel faster than the velocity of that object relative to the observer.

Since the distance between objects in an expanding Universe is proportional to time, due to the speed of light, the further an object is from an observer, the older it is compared to the light that the observer sees from it.

The most distant object we can see will be at the very edge of the Observable Universe. Therefore, since there is no way to tell what is past the edge of the Observable Universe, it is irrelevant to us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
It could be info or could be just a balance act of potential energy of nothing.

Odd idea to think that everything could happen from just a quirk in nature of nothings properties.
I am in possession of some scientific theory which speaks to 3 different forms of nothing. In turn this 1st form of nothing can be understood by looking at the numerical count of zero, this 2nd form of nothing can be understood by looking at the cancelation associated with the polarity of zero & this 3rd form of nothing comes from 1 of the many different paradigms that I have for the dimensional physics of our space dimension. However I won't be getting into this last form nothing here as its scientific theory doesn't really fit inside the nothing that we are talking about.

It is to my understanding that in order for something to exist not only must it first have manifestation but it is through this manifestation that it must manifest as a 'Boolean Have Value'. In turn it is through this boolean have value that it must manifest as a numerical count of 1. At the same time though it is also to my understanding that in order for something to !(not)exist not only must it !have manifestation but it is through this !manifestation that it must !manifest as a boolean !have value, in that it must !manifest as a numerical count of zero. In turn it is of my belief that energy or quanta is no exception to this rule or law of manifestation. In other words it is of my belief that not only is there a form of nothing which arises from the '!HAVE' or the '!EXISTENCE' of energy or quanta but i also belive that this form of nothing is denoted and or identified by the count of 0. However I also believe that there is another form of nothing which not only arises from the 'HAVE' or the 'EXISTENCE' of energy/quanta but I also believe that this form of nothing has something to do with the polarized wave cancelation associated with the process of canceling polarized quantum magnitudes. The problem here is that this 2nd form of nothing not only requires us to dive into the polarized binary symmetry of energy/quanta but this form nothing also requires us to dive into the outbound & inbound or from & to 0(point of origin) structuralization of a polarized single sided wave or quantum fluctuation. At the same time though the scientific theory which explains this second form of nothing not only requires energy or quanta to be described as being a specialized form of quantum mathematical information but it also requires that this specialized form of quantum mathematical information have a physical/tangible nature and a polarity/dimensional nature.
 
FYI, Mental Avenger has the correct answer in an expanding universe based upon the Big Bang model. Currently redshifts are measured out to a distance (look back time) of about 13E+9 light years distance or redshifts near 12.0 or z=12.0. The cosmic microwave background is considered z=1000, so the comoving radial distance is out near 46E+9 light years distance from Earth. Telescopes so far see z=12.0 or so for redshifts of objects. The observable universe using telescopes has distance limits. I use these cosmology calculators for the Big Bang model and convert z numbers in cosmology into distances. COSMOLOGY CALCULATORS The most accurate distance measurements use parallax and trigonometry but these distances are limited to about 7,000 to 8,000 light-years using GAIA astrometric data. Other distances are indirect methods in astronomy. Astronomical distance scales
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mental Avenger
I am in possession of some scientific theory which speaks to 3 different forms of nothing. In turn this 1st form of nothing can be understood by looking at the numerical count of zero, this 2nd form of nothing can be understood by looking at the cancelation associated with the polarity of zero & this 3rd form of nothing comes from 1 of the many different paradigms that I have for the dimensional physics of our space dimension. However I won't be getting into this last form nothing here as its scientific theory doesn't really fit inside the nothing that we are talking about.

It is to my understanding that in order for something to exist not only must it first have manifestation but it is through this manifestation that it must manifest as a 'Boolean Have Value'. In turn it is through this boolean have value that it must manifest as a numerical count of 1. At the same time though it is also to my understanding that in order for something to !(not)exist not only must it !have manifestation but it is through this !manifestation that it must !manifest as a boolean !have value, in that it must !manifest as a numerical count of zero. In turn it is of my belief that energy or quanta is no exception to this rule or law of manifestation. In other words it is of my belief that not only is there a form of nothing which arises from the '!HAVE' or the '!EXISTENCE' of energy or quanta but i also belive that this form of nothing is denoted and or identified by the count of 0. However I also believe that there is another form of nothing which not only arises from the 'HAVE' or the 'EXISTENCE' of energy/quanta but I also believe that this form of nothing has something to do with the polarized wave cancelation associated with the process of canceling polarized quantum magnitudes. The problem here is that this 2nd form of nothing not only requires us to dive into the polarized binary symmetry of energy/quanta but this form nothing also requires us to dive into the outbound & inbound or from & to 0(point of origin) structuralization of a polarized single sided wave or quantum fluctuation. At the same time though the scientific theory which explains this second form of nothing not only requires energy or quanta to be described as being a specialized form of quantum mathematical information but it also requires that this specialized form of quantum mathematical information have a physical/tangible nature and a polarity/dimensional nature.
Think of the problem as (void space) and not the math problem of (nothing)
A quantum leap simply an existing orbit and (void) between that orbit.
No mystery why when a decaying atom does a instant jump because it is either one place or another.

Much easier solution to quantum leaps and showing that (void space) is a thing.

If void space exists on the quantum level then why is it structured?
Property of quantum fluctuation or potential energy balance point of (void) is quantum fluctuation.?

With (void) and quantum fluctuation L speed and duality have simple answers as max wave speed through fluctuation and particle nature through (void space).
And maybe the physics nightmare gravity also if it simply travels through only void and not fluctuation.
Or is simply a compression that has no interaction with fluctuation.

Some people accuse me of being (void space) LOL
 
Last edited:
Here is a report covering 2500 years of distance measurement in astronomy, The Depth of the Heavens -- Belief and Knowledge during 2500 Years

In the Big Bang cosmology, telescopes do not see objects with z = 1000 which is the CMBR redshift. Cosmological distances are closer with z=12.0 or so using cosmology calculators, COSMOLOGY CALCULATORS, that is closer to 13E+9 light-years distance in the Big Bang model. What may or may not exist beyond this light-time distance limit in the Big Bang model is not observable presently in astronomy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mental Avenger
Think of the problem as (void space) and not the math problem of (nothing)
A quantum leap simply an existing orbit and (void) between that orbit.
No mystery why when a decaying atom does a instant jump because it is either one place or another.

Much easier solution to quantum leaps and showing that (void space) is a thing.

If void space exists on the quantum level then why is it structured?
Property of quantum fluctuation or potential energy balance point of (void) is quantum fluctuation.?

With (void) and quantum fluctuation L speed and duality have simple answers as max wave speed through fluctuation and particle nature through (void space).
And maybe the physics nightmare gravity also if it simply travels through only void and not fluctuation.
Or is simply a compression that has no interaction with fluctuation.

Some people accuse me of being (void space) LOL
When it comes to the dimensional physics of my theoretical paradigm our space dimensions spacial causing structure is said to have something to do with the structuralization of the oscillation of a fluctuation & 1 dimensional physical spacial area is said to arise from the internal structuralized fluidized volume/energy density of the fluctuation. In turn 3 dimensional or 6 outbound inbound fluctuational physical spacial area is said to arise from a dimension's right angle fluctuational structures' ability to act as dimensional based multipliers in reference to each other thereby causing the sideways or right angle distribution of each others internal structuralized fluidized volume/energy density as they fluctuate. In other words when it comes to the dimensional physics of my theoretical paradigm the structure of physical spacial area is all about the structure of fluctuation itself. And yes I can provide a plausible & legitimate scientific explanation for how & why it is that a dimension's fluctuational structures might be dimensionally dynamically linking, whether it's correct or not is another story.

So now when it comes to 1 of my paradigms for the dimensional physics of our space dimension through the process of changing its quantum state not only is energy, quanta or SFQI said to exit with the ability to cause the physical manifestation of a dimension's fluctuational structures but it is also said to exist with the ability to !cause the physical manifestation of them as well. In turn & when this energy, quanta or SFQI does !cause the physical manifestation of a dimension's fluctuational structures it is said to compress into a single solid mass plank density. But when energy, quanta or SFQI does cause the physical manifestation of a dimension's fluctuational structures the initial proces of this is said to result into the sudden & abrupt instantiation of physical spacial area. At the same time though this process of causing & !causing the physical manifestation of a dimension's fluctuational structures is said to be a circular process and as such under this paradigm here energy, quanta or SFQI is not said to have an initial quantum state of being. However in another paradigm that I have for the dimensional physics of our space dimension our space dimension itself is said to be fluctuating polarized quantum nothing. The trick to it here is that in this paradigm energy, quanta or SFQI is not said to exist with the ability to !cause the physical manifestation of physical spacial area.
 
When it comes to the dimensional physics of my theoretical paradigm our space dimensions spacial causing structure is said to have something to do with the structuralization of the oscillation of a fluctuation & 1 dimensional physical spacial area is said to arise from the internal structuralized fluidized volume/energy density of the fluctuation. In turn 3 dimensional or 6 outbound inbound fluctuational physical spacial area is said to arise from a dimension's right angle fluctuational structures' ability to act as dimensional based multipliers in reference to each other thereby causing the sideways or right angle distribution of each others internal structuralized fluidized volume/energy density as they fluctuate. In other words when it comes to the dimensional physics of my theoretical paradigm the structure of physical spacial area is all about the structure of fluctuation itself. And yes I can provide a plausible & legitimate scientific explanation for how & why it is that a dimension's fluctuational structures might be dimensionally dynamically linking, whether it's correct or not is another story.

So now when it comes to 1 of my paradigms for the dimensional physics of our space dimension through the process of changing its quantum state not only is energy, quanta or SFQI said to exit with the ability to cause the physical manifestation of a dimension's fluctuational structures but it is also said to exist with the ability to !cause the physical manifestation of them as well. In turn & when this energy, quanta or SFQI does !cause the physical manifestation of a dimension's fluctuational structures it is said to compress into a single solid mass plank density. But when energy, quanta or SFQI does cause the physical manifestation of a dimension's fluctuational structures the initial proces of this is said to result into the sudden & abrupt instantiation of physical spacial area. At the same time though this process of causing & !causing the physical manifestation of a dimension's fluctuational structures is said to be a circular process and as such under this paradigm here energy, quanta or SFQI is not said to have an initial quantum state of being. However in another paradigm that I have for the dimensional physics of our space dimension our space dimension itself is said to be fluctuating polarized quantum nothing. The trick to it here is that in this paradigm energy, quanta or SFQI is not said to exist with the ability to !cause the physical manifestation of physical spacial area.
Then the 64 thousand $ question
(e) from nothing or (e) because of nothing.

Quantum fluctuation itself is showing that nothing is a big player in the universe.
Maybe nothing is the real player in the universe and everything else is just the result of nothing having potential energy.
Unbalanced (e)at the start but balanced now.

(e) just a natural result of nothing occupying an area and all other laws set down from the properties of Quantum fluctuation.


A natural set of steps to go from nothing to universe with it's laws already in place i think is the way nature will be.
It might not be my idea that wins the day but so far i have seen no other explain how.
 
First you asked
If void space exists on the quantum level then why is it structured?
You'll have to give me time to figure out an answer that's not 40 miles long.

Second you asked

Then the 64 thousand $ question
(e) from nothing or (e) because of nothing.

My personal belief of it here is that energy or quanta can never not exist. Rather I believe that in its existence energy/quanta has states of being & 1 of these states is said to be the state of being as nothing. In other words it's not (e) from nothing or (e) because of nothing rather it's nothing because of or from (e).
 
First you asked

You'll have to give me time to figure out an answer that's not 40 miles long.

Second you asked

Then the 64 thousand $ question
(e) from nothing or (e) because of nothing.

My personal belief of it here is that energy or quanta can never not exist. Rather I believe that in its existence energy/quanta has states of being & 1 of these states is said to be the state of being as nothing. In other words it's not (e) from nothing or (e) because of nothing rather it's nothing because of or from (e).
Nature hates (nothing) other than at the quantum level.
A fun subject to read on is creating (nothing) odd science and results when you do.

For sure the universe got it's (e) because of or property of or result of (nothing).
Just the how is the great question, and the who came first chicken or egg. :)

I have read much on quantum structure and properties, lots of opposing theories.
Interesting reads but no real leading idea and none really delve into why we have quantum fluctuation at all so your idea of a structured nothing is interesting,

Your idea is much along the lines of mine and might be just looking at (e) the same way from 2 perspectives.
Nothing is quantum fluctuations property or quantum fluctuation is the result of nothing.

Only problem i have with quantum fluctuation being nothing is that it's a balanced (e) at the beginning and difficult to create particles that stay and create the universe.

Starting from nothing that results in quantum fluctuation we have an unbalance (e) at the beginning that creates stable particles that can create a universe.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts