The concept of what lies beyond the observable universe is a fascinating topic that combines science, philosophy, and speculations like: Unobservable Universe, Different Physical Laws, The Multiverse Hypothesis, Infinite Universe and so on.
The speculation of what "lies beyond the observable universe", cannot be answered from the world-view of causality and formal logic; or classical materialism; because it necessarily assume a finite (in space and time) universe - "the First Cause" or a "beginning"; which is a mystery and would never be known.
Only a dialectical-materialist world-view can provide a satisfactory and rational answer to this question, "What lies beyond the observable universe"?. The simple answer is that the universe looks more or less the same as what we see within the currently "observable" universe!! It is because, the universe is Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing! To appreciate this view, one has to understand what is "The Infinite". Modern causality-based official physics and philosophy has no understanding of The Infinite and are out of their depth on this issue! Please see the following references:
"The Limits of Mathematics, Special Issue 64 / April 2019 : http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf
"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies": http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf
"The Dialectical Universe - Some Reflections on Cosmology": https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445
Allwin K. Rex : RG informs me that you recommended my reply; but it does not show in this page! I wonder why?
Julius Riese " Hi Julius! Happy New Year. Yes, RG notified me of two recommendations, the reason I made my second comment.
Thanks and best regards, Abdul
Dear All,
let me try to collect a couple of thoughts here: The question "What lies beyond the observable universe?" is, of course, an intriguing one - not only scientifically, but also philosophically and epistemologically.
Firstly, it begs the counter question: What is meant by "observable"? --> If naked eye and/or instrumental astronomical/astrophysical observability is meant here, then the answer seems straightforward: We don't know since we can't see/observe :-)
In that classical sense, mainstream physicists will probably be quick to point out the alleged emergence of space-time at a distinct point in the past, referred to as the "Big Bang". Standard physicists will then point out that our human eyes and instruments can only be reached by light/radiation that has had sufficient time to travel to us. Everything else would be deemed to lie beyond the horizon of visibility/observability.
However, if one assumes other than mainstream cosmologies, the story seems trickier. Abdul Malek's "dialectical cosmology", e.g., postulates that the universe is "eternal, infinite and ever-changing". Within this theory, no single point of "creation"/beginning such as a Big Bang singularity is assumed. As Abdul had pointed out himself in this thread, it doesn't seem unreasonable then to Assuan that beyond our horizon of observability, there is, basically, "more of the same". However, since "infinity" is rather big - who knows? Couldn't certain fundamental properties of the universe change beyond some finite point in space (or time)?
I would also like to draw attention to a somewhat more remote understanding of the term "observable universe", namely beyond classical four-dimensional space-time. Some theorists would argue that within a "multiverse", parallel universes are mutually inacessible and thus unobservable to each other. Some string theorists also like to believe that multiple dimensions (beyond the four ones we are accustomed to) are not directly perceivable/visible to us since they are theorized to be "rolled-up" on the miniscule scale of "strings".
One last thing: One ist reminded here of Donald D. Hoffman's ("The Case Against Reality" and many other publications) argument/image of the human brain as a PC desktop interface that has evolved to increase fitness in certain environmental contexts, but falls short of grasping physical reality as a whole. In that sense, the "unobservable parts of the universe" may be found right in front of our eyes, we just fail to perceive them (since we can't) (Plato's cave allegory, by the way, always struck me as being not too far removed from that argument...). Full disclaimer: I do not necessarily enorse Hoffman's, Arkani-Hamed's et al.'s often-quoted notion of "space-time being doomed"... :-)
Julius Riese : Dear Julius,
Thanks for referring to my materialist dialectical idea of an Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing universe, a unique and heretic idea in modern theoretical physics and cosmology! In fact, this is not my idea alone, but a very old one going back to Epicurus (341 – 270 B.C.); but historically always viewed (in class society) as sacrilegious. You must know that Giordano Bruno was burnt alive on the Stake by the Inquisition for insisting on such a view.
My revival of such a view, based on Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Hegel’s dialectical philosophy of Space and Time; is facing similar vengeance from almost all quarters, particularly from the invisible but technologically powerful "God Fathers" of modern official physics and cosmology. This is still in the form of censorship, suppression, non-recognition of my ideas, as was the case with my astrophysics mentor Halton (Chip) Arp (the Galileo of modern times for some); but the way it looks like, it could get more physical as well; in my case!!!
My idea, of the Infinite, however, has received some recognition from a very insignificant but prominent mathematicians and theoretical physicists as the following republished review in a journal and the RG article would indicate: The Infinite: http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf
"The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science": Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...
Dear All: I must mention that my idea of the Infinite universe is proposed in the light of the vigorous negation of the theories of modern physics and cosmology; which are based on the “continuous field” (Matter in a Myth) models; including Einstein’s theories of relativity, quantum field, SM, many worlds, multi-dimensional, string, super-string etc., theories that Julius mentioned above.
My negation of the theories of modern physics and cosmology and idea of the infinite universe is mostly based on my more recent but significant publications; some of which are listed below:
Momentum – the Archilles’ Heel of Causality-based Physics: The Root of Its Miseries - from the Quantum to the Cosmic. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 304–312. https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9682
What is Light, Really? A Quantum Dialectical View. Ann Math Phys. 2024;7(3):292-299. https://www.mathematicsgroup.us/articles/AMP-7-235.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385343389_What_is_Light_Really_A_Quantum_Dialectical_View
New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2 : https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9642
New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity - The Real Phenomenology of Space-Time-Matter-Motion. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594
“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
“Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology”! https://www.peertechzpublications.us/amp/article/view/AMP-6-181/pdf
“KEPLER – NEWTON – LEIBNIZ – HEGEL : Portentous And Conflicting Legacies In Theoretical Physics, Cosmology And In Ruling Ideas“: https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9106
My work in fact is a vindication of what Albert Einstein realized and admitted the folly of his (Kantian) subjective idealism-based theories of modern physics and cosmology; in a letter to his very close and life-long friend and collaborator Michelle Besso; less than a year before his death, as follows: “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken... I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics”: Albert Einstein, quoted by A Pais, Subtle is the Lord …”The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467
Please note: Some of the links to the journals may have been blocked, deleted and/or infected with electronic malware (virus); as a hostile act against my views. However, all of these should be available from my RG profile – fortunately the only safe place for my views on modern theoretical physics and cosmology!
Abdul, I downloaded your article from "Shape Journal" - nice pic there of you and Chip Arp :-)
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching