what is the shape of our plotted expanding universe (size vs time)?
375583
The Planck epoch: 10-43 seconds\nSee also: Quantum gravity, String theory, and Loop quantum gravity \nIf supersymmetry is correct, then at this time the four fundamental forces – electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity – all have the same strength, and are unified into one fundamental force. Little else is known about this epoch, although different theories make different predictions. Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity before this time. Physicists hope that speculative theories of quantum gravity, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, will eventually lead to a better understanding of the singularity, or even allow us to calculate what came before.\n\nThe Grand Unification Epoch: 10-33 seconds\nMain article: Grand unified theory \nAs the universe expands and cools from the Planck epoch, gravity begins to separate from the fundamental gauge interactions: electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Physics at this scale may be described by a grand unified theory in which the gauge group of the Standard Model is embedded in a much larger group, which is broken to produce the observed forces of nature. Eventually, the grand unification is broken as the strong nuclear force separates from the electroweak force. This should produce magnetic monopoles.\n\nCosmic inflation\nMain article: Cosmic inflation \nThe temperature, and therefore the time, at which cosmic inflation occurs is not known. During inflation, the universe is flattened and the universe enters a homogeneous and isotropic rapidly expanding phase in which the seeds of structure formation are laid down in the form of a primordial spectrum of nearly-scale-invariant fluctuations.\n\nReheating\nDuring reheating, the exponential expansion that occurred during inflation ceases and the potential energy of the inflaton field decays into a hot, relativistic plasma of particles. If grand unification is a feature of our universe, then cosmic inflation must occur during or after the grand unification symmetry is broken, otherwise magnetic monopoles would be seen in the visible universe. At this point, the universe is dominated by radiation.\n\nBaryogenesis\nMain article: Baryogenesis \nNo known physics can explain the fact that there are so many more baryons in the universe than antibaryons. In order for this to be explained, the Sakharov conditions must be met at some time after inflation. There are hints that this is possible in known physics and from studying grand unified theories, but the full picture is not known.\n\nThe early universe\nAt this time, the universe is filled with a quark-gluon plasma.\n\nThe electroweak epoch: 10-12 s\nSee also: Electroweak force \nIn electroweak symmetry breaking, all the fundamental particles are believed to acquire a mass via the Higgs mechanism in which the Higgs boson acquires a vacuum expectation value. At this time, neutrinos decouple and begin travelling freely through space. This cosmic neutrino background, while unlikely to ever be observed in detail, is analogous to the cosmic microwave background that was emitted much later.\n\nSupersymmetry breaking\nMain article: Supersymmetry breaking \nIf supersymmetry is a property of our universe, then it must be broken at an energy as low as 1 TeV, the electroweak symmetry scale. The masses of particles and their superpartners would then no longer be equal, which could explain why no superpartners of known particles have ever been observed.\n\nThe hadron epoch: 10-6s to 10-2 s\nMain article: Quark-gluon plasma \nThe quark-gluon plasma which composes the universe cools until hadrons, including baryons such as protons and neutrons, can form.\n\nNucleosynthesis: 1s\nMain article: Big bang nucleosynthesis \nAt this time, the universe is cool enough that atomic nuclei can begin to form. Protons (hydrogen ions) and neutrons begin to combine into atomic nuclei. At the end of nucleosynthesis, the uni
319855
The visible universe is supposedly that size because we can see the light from the beginning and therfore base the size on how far light has travelled in the time; However, the universe is not actually that size, since there are areas beyond the Event Horizon which light has not come from yet, and thus the universe is larger than that estimate.\n\n More to answer your point, the universe is expanding at its limits, but as it does so it creates teh space that we as three-dimensional beings can move in, like a dot on the surface of a balloon; If the dot could move anywhere on the surface, it could move all over the balloon, but never cover all of it as it expands. In the same way, the univrese is finite in size, but unbounded in dimension and therefore to practiacl purposes probably infinite.\n\n It's a hard concept and many people have trouble with it.:)
475751
An analogy may be in order. Model spacetime by a \nsphere with time being  represented by going down \na longitude line and space for a fixed time being\nrepresented by a latitude line. The Big Bang would \nbe represented by the north pole. In this model, \nspace expands until we get to the equator and then \nstarts to contract again until we get to the south \npole, which represents a 'Big Crunch'.\n\nIn this model, ask what is north of the north pole. \nThis is *exactly* like  asking what is before the Big \nBang. There is no real answer because the question\nassumes that time exists before the Big Bang, but \nin fact, time is part of the structure of the universe \nand began at the Big Bang.\n\nWe could also ask what space is expanding into. By \nlooking at our model, we see the question is either \nmeaningless, or just has the answer 'into the future'.\n\nIn the real world, the spacial part is three dimensional, \nnot one dimensional like in our model (the circles of \nlatitude). Also, it is likely that the universe\nwill expand forever, so instead of a sphere, a \ntrumpet shape may be more appropriate. But the actual \nmodels used by scientists are generalizations and\nelaborations of models like this toy model.
23168
In an extention of the big bang theory, the size of the spots in the microwave background radiation can indicate the geometry of the universe. Recent (2001) measurements confirm that the universe is "flat" (for an explanation of shapes, see source link). There is a 2% margin of error in this measurement.\n\nAs for what is beyond space, I would say the question isn't possible to answer, as most people define "space" to mean "Everything there is". What is outside of "everything"? Nothing, it would seem.
1182960
The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if Comoving distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally. In other words, the galaxies (or more accurately, galaxy clusters) do not physically move away from each other. Rather, the fabric of spacetime between them expands. This also explains the Inflationary epoch during the Big Bang, when the universe expanded from a size a hundred billion times smaller than a proton to approximately one hundred million light years in diameter in just 10-32 of a second.
667215
An interesting theory!  What do you think it will start coliding with?  Actually as space expands, the matter within it becomes farther and farther apart, so there is less and less chance of colisions.  \n\nThere are two aspects of the curvature of space.  Local curvature is caused by (or causes) gravity - masses curve the space around them.  But the entire universe may be curved on a great 4-D sphere.  \n\nThe third link below gives an excellent discussion on curvature and the expansion, including an explanation of the density parameter.  If the density parameter is less than 1, then the universe will expand forever.  \n\nAstrophysics and cosmology are pretty fascinating topics.  Keep asking questions and, when the time is right, take some classes in these subjects (take lots of math first!).  The scientific world needs folks who can think outside the box!
91401
There isn't one.\n\nThis is similar to the question, "OK, the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?"\n\nBoth questions are based on analogies which are designed to help us think about complex situations. They tend to be ones where we think of the universe as being something like the surface of an inflating beach ball which is being blown up. Our image of the "beach ball universe" includes space to expand into.\n\nThis is a limitation of the analogy, not the actual universe. The details of General Relativity describe the "shape" of the universe and how gravity effects different parts. GR works on the scale of galaxies and galaxy clusters. For smaller scales, dropping a pencil off your desk for instance, Newton's Gravity is fine. (GR turns into Newton's Law of Gravity at small scales.)\n\nOur brains are simply not designed to imagine curved space with all three spatial dimensions. To get around this the analogies use two-dimensional universes. But the analogies can't be taken too far. In this case, the only way to really understand deeply the structure of the universe is by understanding the mathematics. There is no exact mental picture.\n\nSo, the question has no answer, and in fact, logically speaking, makes no sense. (That isn't to say it is not a sensible question, it is a sensible question.)\n\nThe usual example of such a question is: "What is north of the north pole." Once one gets to the pole there is no more North. Everything is south. So asking what is north of the north pole is (logically) a nonsensical question.
31705
The best guess today: no.\n\nIn modern cosmology the topology of the universe appears to be open. "Topology" meaning the shape, although in the case of the universe to observe the shape we would have to exist in 4 spatial dimensions. Since we're stuck in 3-dimensions we have to get by on analogies.\n\nThe topology or shape of the universe is something which comes out of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It depends primarily on the distribution of mass and energy in the universe. If the amount of mass-energy is more than a certain critical value then the universe would be "closed." Basically the mass would curve space-time back onto itself. In a closed universe you could fly off in the direction of the north pole and (after about 25 billion years) and circle the universe to land on the south pole.\n\nIf the amount of mass in the universe is less than this critical value then the topology of the universe is a bit more complex, but, to answer your question space would be infinite.\n\nBased on what we know today that is the case, space is infinite.\n\nHowever, we cannot see an infinite universe. When we see things that are farther away we also see them from deeped in the past. A galaxy we see that is 10 billion light years distant is actually a view of what the galaxy looked like 10 billion years in the past.\n\nWhen we look farther in space, and thus earlier in the history of the universe, we eventually run into the microwave background. For the first 10,000 years or so after the Big Bang the universe was so dense that it wasn't yet transparent. When the density dropped enough to be transparent then some of the light could escape for us to detect much later.\n\nHowever, while the universe is thought to be about 13 billion years old, we can actually see out a bit farther than that, I think around 20 billion light years, because the universe is expanding.\n\nWhat this boils down to is that there is a sort of "wall" beyond which we can't see. This wall corresponds to a time soon after the Big Bang. However, studies of the total mass-energy within the universe strongly suggest that it has an open topology - that it is infinite.\n\n(Of course it is possible that this infinity will be refined when we have a better theory of how Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity play togther. String Theory is one way to combine these two.)
1003903
There are three possibilities, depending on solutions to the equations of General Relativity and how much mass is in the universe:\n\n1. the universe will stop expanding and then collapse in on itself to a big crunch\n2. the universe will keep expanding for ever\n3. the universe will reach a "stable size" - neither collapse nor expand forever\n\nNo-one knows which.
988250
space is not infinite  although to us it is pretty much,  confused  great.  the universe is currently expanding, whether it will always continue to do so is due to critical density and mean density of the universe.     if critical density = (3i x hubbles constant^2)/ 8piG      if critical density is greater than average density then the universe will contineue to expand forever although it wont ever become infinite because the recession of the galaxies is limited by the maximum speed of light, and the fact that the universe had a begining therefore has a limmited size. \nalso  if average denisty is greater than critical density then the universe will be closed (hyperbolic) and the gravitational pull of the galxies will cause the universe expansion to slow and eventually contract. if critical density = average density then universe expansion will slow down universe would be flat, Most cosmologists believe that the universe is open and will continue to expand, which is nice, heres something nice to think about that if the universe is exapanding at the speed of light and the universe has been around for 1/Ho   1/hubblesconstant then the unverse is about 13 biliion years old this is 4.16x10^17 seconds  times the speed of light  3x10^8 ms-1 is  1.248x10^26m  in one direction   if the universe is spherical  which it isnt but lets pretent it is for an easier calculation then the Volume of the Universe is  4/3 pi r^3    is 8.142x10^78m^3   which is quite alot of space. As the amount of volume that real mass takes up is insignificant at these measurement  we can forget about it.   On the other hand light follows the shortest routes as mass distorts space it is likely that this answer is a bit smaller.  Oh and the universe isnt spherical its more like a ball thats been sat on,    So in summary the universe is not infinite but it is pretty much as it is likely to be expanding at the invariant maximum speed of light so your never going to hit the edge, infact there isnt an edge im not sure would happen if you got to the edge before the first radiation from the beggining of the big band reached the edge,   But i dont think youd get there,  well about your car  at the moment if your car takes up 6m^3  then theres enough space in the universe to hold 1.3x10^78  cars   but theres not enough matter in the universe to make that much cars  for that so dont worry too much about it, also in 1 second the universes volume increases by lots  uhhh     ok if the universe was 8.142x10^78m^3   rite this second  and the universe is exactly 13 billion years  old  (which its not) then in one second later the universe would be bigger yeas thats right  bigger by           ok one second is too small to make any effect on the calcullation,  but if it was a billion years older then it would be 1.016x10^79m^3  thats 2.02x10^78m^3 more than it was a billion years earlier which means it expansion is well logarithmic exponential whatever, the next billion year the universe would expand even more in the same time,   soo  thats even more parking spaces, if u look hardenough im sure you wiil find some.    No wonder i dont have a girlfreind.
122538
Currently the universe is expanding. However, we are not sure yet whats going to happen in the future. This is because it is possible that the universe will constantly keep on expanding as it is right now. Or it is also possible that the gravitational pull of the universe will be so huge that it will collapse under its own gravity. Right now, we are almost at a point of intersection between these 2 cases and in a few thousand years we'll know exactly where this is going. Ofcourse, you and I wont be around to witness that, but astronomically its a small amount time.
24590
The universe may or may not have a large three or four demensional structure, but it more than likely has an overall natural curvature based on it's density.  If the density of the universe is enough to overcome the expansion of the big bang, than general relativity predicts that space will have a possitive curvature, like that of a sphere.  If it's density is less than the expansive force of the big bang it will have a negative curvature, which is impossible to model in three dimensional space, but is often described as saddle like.  If the density is exactly right that the universe will slow in its expansion forever and never re-collapse, then space is probably flat.  This site could help...\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
326153
1)"The simple answer is that the observable Universe is about 20 billion light years in diameter. That number is obtained by multiplying how old we think the Universe is by the speed of light."\n2)rate of expansion is not constant throughout the Universe\nit varies with distance\nyou can see the variation with distance in this GRAPH AT\nhttp://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/Images/hubble_lg.jpg
52550
I believe the universe is a 'closed' shape, meaning that there is no 'edge', however it does have a finite size.  But just to entertain your question, if we one day did reach the End of the Universe we literally would be unable to describe anything on the otherside.  Everything we know about physics, space time, the fundamental forces, the universal constants and so on only exist in this universe.  Anything 'outside' of the universe could potentially then have different laws of physics and thus would be completely beyond our comprehension.  Words would literally fail.  For more fun reading, checkout the link in the sources.
17229
Any answer is only a guess, the true size is unknown. Plus the fact that its still expanding, so its size changes every day.
432389
This is actually really interesting thesis. If we somehow managed to prove the fractal structure of the universe i guess we would resolve so many physical and astronomical questions...\n\nBut the mathematic functions for the fractals create structures on the two dimensional field which have an infinite property, therefore their dimension is somewhere between 2 and 3. \n\nBut if you're talking about space and atoms, you need to add the dimension of depth (third), dimension of time (4th) and probably some more dimensions that haven't even been discovered yet. \n\nBesides that, fractals are static and the universe is always shifting and changing and expanding. \n\nTherefore I think that with the knowledge and sources and technology we posses nowadays, it is impossible for us to figure out the fractal equation that determines the atoms in the same way as the galaxies.
835420
When the one location is definable as a mathimatical singularity you'd be surprised what can happen, it has been postulated that the "Big Bang" had more space dimensions then the present universe and if that's the case then it very easily could have been the origin of all matter. How many 2-D circles fit in a sphere? Infinitly many. Same idea.\n\nAnd the "Big Bang" wasn't a cherry-bomb-in-space. There was no space. Thanks to Relitivity we know that Space and Time are consequences of the existance of gravity and quantum mechanical forces which require matter and energy too exist. Trying to use conservation of mass to disprove Big Bang isn't valid, as there was no space or time before the Big Bang so there's nothing to compare it to.\n\nAs for whether or not there's evidence for the Big Bang, I beg to differ. The Cosmic Radiation Background is more then just proof, it's the proverbial smoking gun. I really hope this helps.