Is the Universe infinitesimally small? (Please see explanation.)?

Question

Light travels at a finite speed. So when we look at distant bodies in our Universe, we are seeing them as they were in the past (as I'm sure many of you already know). If we look back far enough, we will see the Big Bang (just think about it for a few minutes if you don't believe me). This must be true no matter which direction we look. So, no matter where we look in the sky, we will be looking at the same singularity (a point). It seems to me that we might interpret this as meaning we are infinitesimally small.

I admit that the concept is very strange. I only ask that you think before you answer with your ideas.

Answer 1

Yes size is only relative to our perception as it is with time. We only name what we can measure, if we cant see it with our naked eye we will question its existence until we find a method of seeing it.
I tend not to believe that there was a beginning because time measurement is similar to your size measurement it is only relative to the observer. I would think also that the universe would continue indefinitely to expand into the "impossible" vacuum,

This vacuum if it could have existed before the so called bb would still be in existence today. The universe would still be trying to expand into the void at an alarming rate, this expansion would in effect freeze matter to the point where no energy will emits from the zone closest to the vacuum, there are other problems associated with looking that far back in the past, which is beyond the scope of your question, interesting question, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Answer 2

"Interesting. Verrrry in-terrr-resting." Shultz

When we look at objects at great distances, we are indeed seeing them as they were in the past. We are not capable of "looking back far enough." We are only capable of seeing the light emitted from these objects that is presently reaching us - we can't look further back. The light they emitted "further back" is long gone past us and into the great unknown.

Assuming there was a Big Bang, it's light would be long gone, too. And it would have occurred in a distinct position in space and spread out 360 degrees in all directions.
This position in space would not be in any "direction we look."

If what you assert were true, the further out into space we look, the closer the galaxies and stars would be clustered - and the closer (more recent) ones would be moving apart at a much greater rate - remember, we would be looking at these great distance objects shortly after the Big Bang when they haven't had the time necessary to move great distances from one another. So far, this hasn't been the case. Perhaps the light from these objects which might support your theory hasn't reached us yet, or, more likely, we don't have the technology to see out that far. Perhaps in the future we will look further and further into space and completely change our perceptions.

Your thoughts and observations are very unique - I have never heard anyone describe the universe as small before - and then back it up with some interesting thoughts.

Answer 3

The universe is infinitely large. Light travels in only one direction; In a straight line from the point of origin (in all directions unless obstructed). Line of sight, so to speak. When we look into space and see the past we are looking at reflected light or reflected radio waves. Or we are catching these light / radio waves as they reach us form the source if we are lucky enough to be looking in the right direction at the right time.
As for the beginning of the universe: we missed any reflections from anything even remotely close to us. We've got to go further out to catch the ones that haven't made it this far yet or to catch the ones that might otherwise be blocked by any celestial obstructions.

Answer 4

The simple answer is that the observable Universe is about 10 billion light years in radius.That number is obtained by multiplying how old we think the Universe is by the speed of light.The reasoning there is quite straightforward: we can only see out to that distance from which light can have reached us since the Universe began.

The universe is believed to be still expanding outwards since the 'big bang' so its exact size is unknown

Answer 5

It proves that the universe, at time of Big Bang, was small. However, this is an intelligent question indeed and asking questions like this is the door to many discoveries by theoretical physicists. That's why great physicists became great in their twenties. Seems the older we get the more we lose this innate curiosity that leads to discoveries. The problem with science is that we do not have many good answers, it is we do not have the right questions.

Answer 6

It could be both at the same time since the big bang. I don't think we have found the smallest thing in this universe, or planet even,(my wife may disagree with me there .(",) ) The infinite pattern could represent the largest and smallest at the same time.

Answer 7

what do you mean by small ? you mean that it's not so "infinite" and we might reach its boundaries someday ? well, boundaries from where :) ????

i disagree with the issue of seeing the big bang, yes we see stars as they were thousands of year ago, but in the end, they're seperate bodies from us. the start of the big bang is that very concentrated mass and energy , of which we're part of it somehow, and we still can't see ourselves in the past. i thought we could though :)

maybe someday !!
good thinking ;)

Answer 8

"Small" is a relative term. If the universe is "small," what is it smaller than?

Answer 9

About half of it makes sense...