I’ll admit, I’m not deep in astronomy but thats inherently misguided. In a 3d space, observing at a fixed point, all areas that extend past how far we can observe would not be the shape of the universe but just our range of vision.
If we assume the hubble constant is the same in all directions, the farthest we’d be able to see would be a sphere, dictated by the time light has had to travel to us.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Tinidril@midwest.social 1 day ago
Thus the term “observable universe”. Everything beyond our observable universe is being expanded away from us at faster than the speed of light, so nothing outside will ever reach us. Causality is completely and irrevocably severed at those distances so, arguably, anything outside the observable universe is not part of “our” universe.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day ago
My point is, it doesn’t reveal anything about the nature of the universe only about the limited view we can observe.
Tinidril@midwest.social 1 day ago
As I just explained, it’s not really about observation, it’s about causation. If two objects can never possibly interact, then are they really in the same universe?
Looking out in space is also looking back in time. Anything (roughly) that is further than we can observe in the microwave background would be further back in time than the beginning of time, and therefore doesn’t exist at all in our universe. It a bit brain bending.
Grimpen@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
That’s what I’m assuming the original diagram is showing, the “Observable Universe” in some sort of radically increasing scale.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It’d be interesting to see what a log scale would look like for this. I’ll see if I can find one.
Here’s one.
Log scale diagram of the observable universe pablocarlosbudassi.com/…/atlas-of-universe-is-lin…
Looks like the image at the top is a bit condensed comparatively.