Can the Universe be much much larger than estimated?

Question

Since we can not see beyond the extents provided by the Hubble telescope, can there be distributed infinite mass beyond our current perceptions that is contributing to our perceptions?

What would be the consequences of the weak repulsive force of gravity in our perceived Universe, if the Universe were actually infinite (yet distributed)?

If we were to project our current understanding of the Universe out onto the unknown expanse of space assuming infinite mass, what conditions would need to exist beyond what we perceive to make our perceptions fit into that model?

Answer 1

The universe is expanding so you can never get a good estimate for that long but its not infinity in size but in mass ie all matter makes the Universe but Space on the other hand is infinity in which the universe is expanding in and maybe infinity numbers of universes also

Answer 2

I BELIEVE & ANSWER IS YES

Answer 3

>The weak repulsive force of gravity supposedly does not override the strong attractive force of gravity until separated by great distances.

It appears rather improbable that the Universe, at least in the spatial sense we normally think of, is very much larger than our current estimates. We know with a fair amount of precision just how long ago the Big Bang happened, and just how 'wide' the Universe really is. Any further extent of the Universe would have to be in other dimensions (probably dimensions too small for us to notice without very precise scientific instruments). It is more likely that the Universe is roughly the size it appears, and that there are merely other universes 'outside' it.

>Since we can not see beyond the extents provided by the Hubble telescope, can there be distributed infinite mass beyond our current perceptions that is contributing to our perceptions?

Not realistically, no. It appears that the Universe has both a finite mass and a finite size.

Answer 4

yes

Answer 5

Probably.. the universe is larger than what they thought 70 years ago.. until they developed the hubble space telescope.. and when another much precise and sophisticated telescope will be developed, then another measurement might occur.. one thing they cannot precisely explain is the dark energy that continuously expanding.. hence, the universe might be expanding  continuously..

Answer 6

The Universe is infinite.

Answer 7

this is a very good theory..i for one, think that here at earth, we dont know it all. and there could be things out there that nobody knows about. and yes i think that the universe can be muchhh bigger than we think..

Answer 8

I was thinking that if any large amount of mass that coalesces together (many many galaxies), that a Big Bang might just be a consequence.

In the extents of an infinite space, we might just be seeing the short term aftermath of that explosion.  Eventually, other galaxies not part of our own Big Bang might venture into our viewable space after the explosive forces are distributed further.

Pehaps there are Big Bangs happening continuously throughout the infinite expanse of an infinite Universe.

Imagine a table full of water balloons, each balloon hanging from a thread that allows the balloon to barely touch the table.  Now raise one of the balloons up and cut the thread.  It drops and bursts.

The force and components of that Universe push and spread out  in 2 dimensions, sending peices out amongst the other balloons.

For a snapshot in a moment in time, the Universe that had exploded looks like it is expanding without any resistance.

But eventually, the other balloons move to partially fill the space vacated by the exploded balloon.

If we are part of an infinite Universe, we may still be in the vibration mode where the outer Galaxies are being attracted by exterior galaxies and local masses exterior to our Big Bang, but eventually a vibration component will thrust a reverse moment onto our expanding galaxies and reverse their directions; or rather, change their courses.

If this is true, then most likely some of the galaxies that we see should be moving on different vectors than a simple radial explosive force line from the origin of our Big Bang.  As they interact with exterior galaxies they are pulled off their radial of expansion.

Just a thought

Answer 9

Yes.

What was estimated (the 156 billion light-years in diameter, in comoving distance -- equivalent to a 14 billion light-year radius in proper distance) is the minimum size the universe can have.  This was the conclusion of analysis of data captured by the probe WMAP.

It is possible that the universe is infinite in spatial extent (i.e., it goes on forever in any direction).

We would assume that the "cosmological principle" applies everywhere:  on the large scale, space is homogeneous and isotropic.

Homogeneous = relatively the same everywhere (at the same time value -- remember that when we look far, we look in the past, explaining the difference between "now" and "then").

Isotropic = looks the same in any direction.

Has to be on the large scale.  On the small scale, if you look towards your feet, Earth gets in the way of the rest of the universe.  Obviously it does not look the same as if you look up.

The key is not total mass, but average mass density.  If the universe is infinite (and homogeneous, and isotropic), then the total mass content must be infinite.  However, the density could be anything (infinite mass divided by infinite volume = any number you want).  

What we can do is measure the mass density in our neck of the woods and assume that it is the same everywhere else.

When we look at the Cosmological Microwave Background radiation, we certainly get the impression that any fluctuation in the density (over the "tiny" portion we can see) is very small.

If density appears very homogeneous over a radius of 14 billion light-years (in proper distance), then it could be homogeneous over much larger volumes and, maybe, perhaps, everywhere.

Answer 10

Yes.. I dont believe there is an end to the universe.. What could be possible be beyond it..