If the answer is yes, that the edge of the Cosmic Light Horizon (CLH) is 13.7 Billion Light Years (BLY) in all directions, that would mean that we are in the center of the known universe (unlikely) and the light we see from 13.7BLY away is from the edge of the known universe, in all directions.\n\nThat would also mean that the universe is 27.4BLY wide (not including the expansion that took place in the last 13.7 Billion Years (BY), because we're looking back 13.7BY and cannot know what happened since, at that distance).\n\nTherefore, if it took 13.7BY for the universe to expand to a width of (at least) 27.4BLY, and it took 13.7BY until that light from the edge reached us, then the age of the universe should actually be well over 27 billion years.\n\nAlternatively, if the CLH is 13.7BLY in one direction, but some number less than that in the opposite direction, we should be able to extrapolate the approximate center of the known universe, and its age.\n\nAm I wrong, right or just crazy?
215587
It is in all directions.  The expansion of the universe is happening at all points, so there is no center to be found, the reason why we see to 13.7 billion light years in all directions is that is how old the universe is, we can only see to distances that light would have travelled in that amount of time, hence a large 13.7 billion lightyear bubbles around us.\n\nSpace is expanding at all points, thus at each place in the universe this "bubble" will be seen - no one is at the center.
424853
We can only see the universe out to our horizon (essentially the distance of cosmic microwave background radiation about 13.7 billion light years away).  The size of the rest of the universe can't really be known.  Some cosmologies make our corner of the universe as a "pocket universe" in a much larger multiverse where physical constants (and so the behavior of so called physical laws) vary over unfathomable distances with little universes peppered throughout it.  So, we can't really say how big it is, only how big the portion we can actually see is.\n\nHere is a little summary in a review of a fun book:\nhttp://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/sc-imo17.htm\n\nThis Science article would be a good read too.  Any university library will have a subscription and a good public library will too, or you can buy the article online. \nhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5737/1022\n\nWith the universe so large, I think it highly unlikely that life did not evolve elsewhere, especially considering how quickly it seems to have arisen on Earth.  Intelligent life is another story and much harder to address.  A great book about life written for non-science major college students is "Life in the Universe" by Jefferey Bennett et al. Get it used, or maybe for Christmas.  With some effort it is accessible even to a junior high school student.\n\nhttp://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770/sr=1-8/qid=1163518785/ref=sr_1_8/102-7735916-8685767?ie=UTF8&s=books
327338
well, spacetime does not seem to end, and nothing is "holding up" spacetime.\n\nthe universe is not infinite. the universe is finite yet has no edge and no center. it may be something like the two dimensional surface of a sphere. nothing inside or outside the sphere exists for the two dimensional surface.\n\nalso, i have something for you to think about. the radius of observable universe is about 46 billion lightyears, yet the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
372263
To begin, it's unfortunate that many people cannot see beyond their everyday, boring. Job, home, sleep - repeat until you get old and die. Thinking about the Universe teaches us about ourselves. As Carl Sagan always said, "We are made of star stuff!". Every single thing on Earth is made of of atom and molecules that once burned inside stars. Every atom in our bodies come from stars. Like it or not, we are directly linked to the Universe.\n\nOn average, there are 100,000 stars in every galaxy. And galaxies hang out in groups of a few hundred. If you look at very foamy suds in your sink, that's how scientists see the Universe - there are empty spaces but the white foam around the bubbles would be where all the galaxies are.\n\nRight now, the best telescope that can see the farthest is the Hubble. A few years ago, scientists working with the Hubble pointed it at one of the darkest regions in the night sky. All other telescopes saw only the deepest black. But when Hubble's images returned they saw thousands of galaxies (see Hubble Heritage - Deep Field). Light travels at 160,000 miles per second. That's pretty fast but over great distances it still takes time for light to travel. The deeper you look into space, the farther back you're looking into time. Those faraway galaxies Hubble photographed were 24 billion light years away! So we're seeing 24 billion years into the past. The Universe is estimated to be 27 billion years old so we're close to seeing the Universe in its begining.\n\nIf you have the time, check out the Hubble Heritage site. A lot of people say that seeing its images is uplifting and inspirational. Maybe these images will ease your mind.
297767
as far as we can tell, the universe is bigger than anything else ever.  the old school of thinking is what named the universe (from Latin, uni = one, verse = turn, ...) and the thought was that it went forever and contained everything.  some dictionaries may have something different to say.\n\nif the universe is finite, then what is at the edge of the universe?  what may lie beyond the universe?  are there other universes?\n\nask God when you get to heaven i suppose.
663877
Yes, in a way, looking at distant objects in our universe is like looking back in time.\nThe farther away we look, the older the image we are seeing is.\nAs fast as light travels, it still only travels at a finite speed and takes time to cross the VAST distances of interstellar (or even intergalactic) space.\nThings we wee in the sky could be billions of years old, we could be watching the formation of a new star (or for that matter, be receiving transmissions from an alien life form) that has since died long ago.
568245
Hi NY NY 2\n\nQuite a hodge podge of answers above.  let me see if I can clear some misconceptions up for you:\n\nFirst, the evidence. About 8 years ago two separate independent groups announced measurements of the brightness of supernova at a redshift z=1.  (Cosmologists use redshift factor "z" to show how far away something is in space-time by designating how far light from the object is redshifted by the time it arrives at earth.  The redshift is due to the expansion of the intervening space.  Redshift z=1 corresponds to a distance where the wavelength of light has been redshifted to double its original wavelength.).  These results indicated that the universal expansion was accelerating.  Since that time the results have been confirmed, and supporting evidence was found in the detailed mapping of the microwave background.\n\nSurprisingly (you might think) it is very easy to modify the equations which describe the universe's evolution to make the expansion accelerate.  The reason for this is that Einstein originally included such a factor in his early equations.\n\nBriefly, the equations for the universe at large scale talk about gravity and pressures.  Gravity tries to collapse the universe together and pressures push it apart (roughly).  When Einstein came up with his model (1915), everyone thought the universe was static (so called "steady state"), ie it didn't change over time.  So he included a cosmological constant to counteract the collapsing action of gravity and keep the universe steady.  This cosmological constant "pushes outwards" to counter gravities inward push.  By 1928 Hubble's catalogue had convinced people the universe was expanding (not steady) and physicists realised the cosmological constant wasn't required.  Einstein called its original inclusion "his biggest blunder".  It seems that call was wrong.  :o)\n\nNow the cosmological constant is coming back.  To describe an expanding universe you stick it back in and change the values for the density of normal mass-energy and the cosmological constant, and voila - an expanding universe.  The question then becomes: what does this constant physically represent?\n\nAt present cosmologists use the term "dark energy" to refer to a number of possible culprits.  From the equations we know the properties of this dark energy very well.  Some physicists link it to action of the quantum vacuum, some label it "quintessence" (the "fifth force").  \n\nIt is *not* (as suggested above) dark matter or antimatter.  Dark matter is invoked to explain galactic dynamics: galaxies tend to rotate in a fashion which suggests they have more mass than we can actually see.  This missing mass is presumed to be dark (which is why we can't see it).  Dark matter would act like ordinary matter in Einstein's equaitons, and so can't produce an accelerated expansion.  Antimatter also behaves gravitationally like ordinary matter and so it can't be responsible for accelerated expansion either.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
201152
The universe contains all the matter and energy that was ever in it.\n\nSo, going from the Big Bang Hypotheisi, it is reasonable to assume that there was a flash of light (energy, which must remain within the universe) at the time of the explosion.\n\nGiven that light travels at a constant speed, and the universe is about 15 billion years old, the universe is an every expanding sphere of space, 30 billion light-years across.\n\nWhilst it may not go on forever, you'll never reach the outer  boundary!
37677
Your thinking is correct! There's a phrase that's unfortunately left out when we read about the universe -- "observable universe." We see a galaxy 13-billion light years distant as it was 13-billion years ago. During the 13-billion years it took light from there to reach us, that galaxy has moved beyond the limits of the "observable universe." Remember, the farther away a distant galaxy is when we observe it, the faster it's rushing away.\n\nIn the case of the galaxy 13-billion light years away, it's recessional velocity is 3^11 km/sec. That's NOW. But in the 13-billion years it's taken light to get here, that same galaxy has moved another 1.2^16 light years farther away, and that puts it well beyond the limits of the "observable universe."
53899
By "is outer space infinite?" I assume you mean "is the universe infinite?" The answer to this question is NO. The universe and outer space is NOT infinite.\n\nOur current understanding on the origin of the universe tells us that the universe was created in a Big Bang, and that the universe has been expanding ever since (for about 15 billion years). Since light travels 186,000 miles per second, a light-year is about 6 trillion miles or 6 x 10^12.  So 15 billion light years is about 9 x 10^22 miles. This makes the universe very large indeed, but still NOT inifinite.\n\nBTW, this is just the size of our universe. There maybe other universes as other people have indicated, but there is no point talking about them, because we don't know for sure they exist but we are VERY sure that our universe exists.
142254
Once you leave the Milky Way you are not outside the universe. The Milky Way Galaxy is one of many known galaxies in the universe. There are probably billions we don't know about. "Goodness knows where" is inter-galactic space.\n\nInfinity means "forever". It is not necessarily a measurable distance or time. We're not sure if the whole universe is infinite. We can't even see most of what is out there. The estimated size of the observable universe is 7.4x10^26m (that's really, really, really, really big). Beyond that we're not sure yet.
482427
There may be two answers to this question.\n   First;The universe is spherical.expanding from  a single point.\n   It is definitely finite and will someday become extinct.\n   Seems like a big ball!!\n\n   Second;Time acts as just more than an arrow barreling inexorably in one direction.\n   Every entity in the universe has a zero  time point.\n   You,me and an atom.\n   In any direction we look into the past.\n   This would imply a two dimensional expanding sphere.\n   This would not be much fun!\n   We know the universe works.It incorporates a sort of holographic feature that allows entities to interact,seemingly in a solid sphere.\n   Two people in a room see each other as they were in the past.\n   Maybe three-hundred millionths of a second ago.\n   Because our reaction time is about one-tenth of a second,we have no awareness of this time lag.\n   To be significant to two people they would have to be about 18,000 miles apart.They would be absolutely unaware of each other.\n   This holographic trick of the universe extends to fundamental particles[The uncertainty principle] and to celestial bodies,stars,galaxies and large structures.\n  Philosophers may want to jump in here to try and hone a comprehensive configuration to this phenomenon.\n   Well I hope I did not confuse you to much. I am going to have sit down and figure out just what I said.
57936
you could see the edge of the universe.  that was one of the things the Hubble space telescope was designed to do. \n\ntaking the age of the universe as around 14 billion yrs old you could see that far(in light years) into space.
424736
The Speed of Light is measured to any observer, preferably "at rest" or not moving on an intersteller ship.  As said above, there is no such thing as absolutely stationary anywhere.  Everything in this Universe moves relative to something else.  We move relative to the local star systems, they in turn move relative to the galactic center.  The galactic center moves realative to the nearby Galaxies, such as Andromeda Galaxy (which in less than 6 Billion years the Milky Way will collide with to form one larger Galaxy).  So, everything moves.  Even if it looks like it doesn't.
21686
You get into Quantum Theory with your intrigue and there is no evidence to support that the universe is not infinate.\n\nHOWEVER, according to the Big Bang theory there was nothing and then there was something in a centralized location millions (billions) of years ago. At the speed that the universe is spreading outwards there has to be an end to it and scientists are trying to get telescopes powerful enough to see to the beginning of time.\n\nWhat lays on the other side? Nobody knows.
520685
The Universe is still expanding.  This can be proven by looking at other Galaxies which due to their redshift are moving away from us.  The Universe exploded from the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago and it is thought that the Universe will exist for about 5 billion more years, at which time it will start to contract, due to its gravity,  and will contract until it is the same size as it was just after the last Big Bang.  Once the Universe has fully contracted it will bounce back into yet another Universe.  The absolute emptiness outside of the Universe is trillions and many trillions of years old.  It is older than you or i can possibly ever imagine!
262029
Is our universe in another universe?  \n\nBefore we can address that question, we must first define universe.  \n\nThe word universe denotes all space and everything (matter, energy) contained within it.  The prefix uni means one.  The root verse means word, carnate message, meaningful substance, matter.  Questions regarding our universe persist today.  Does it have a beginning and end, or does it go on forever and ever?  Is it linear or curved?  If it has limits of length or curvature, then what lies beyond the Universe?  If something lies beyond the Universe, then can’t we accurately call that the Universe?\n\nSome lay people and some scientists conceive of the universe as infinite space.  Others define the universe as finite, or limited (perhaps curved), space.  Still others incorporate the elements of matter and/or energy into their definition of the universe, as opposed to the space beyond matter and energy.\n\nGiven these concepts of our universe, some scientists conclude that the “totality of space could be infinite. Shrink an infinite space by an arbitrary amount, and it is still infinite. (Scientific American March 2005).”  \n\nAs to the notion that we live in an ever expanding universe, moving away from every other universe on the fabric of space-time, some scientists are careful to point out that “\nAndromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble's law describes only the average behavior of galaxies (Scientific American March 2005).”\n\nIn accordance with your supposition that our universe is in another universe, “it has been hypothesized by some scientists that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe).” Modern astrophysicists talk about multiple "pocket" universes that branch off from one another.  Stephen Hawking points out that parallel pocket universes can have no effect on a real observer inside a single pocket, so, according to Hawking, they are theoretical baggage that should be eliminated from cosmology, the study of the origins of the universe.\n\nSome string theories define the universe as a three-dimensional space in an invisible space having more dimensions. This is, in essence, a universe within a universe.  Our zone, a “braneworld” could periodically bounce into another parallel braneworld.  This may create what would appear as a Big Bang from one perspective or a Big Bounce of alternating expanding and contracting universe from another perspective.  Such a cataclysmic event is thought to occur 300 billion years from now, resulting in the rearranging and creation of a new universe.\n\nIs our universe inside another universe?  Well, apparently the Men in Black had it right.  Our universe seems to be inside of something else, another universe, called the multiverse.\n\nSteve\n:-D