FULL size of the universe?

Question

Okey, there is one thing thats really pissing me off, how come everywhere the phrase "universe" is used when actually they are just talking about the visible part of the universe

if we use the word "universe" for our visible universe only, that would mean we are exactly in the center of the universe because we can see equal length in all directions.

according to what iv read there is no way to measure the size nor the center of the universe because it expands equal everywhere and not in the sense of an explosion.

so the other thing that annoys me, why do we think we know so much about the big bang? iv heard multiple places that in the beginning the entire universe would fit in our hands, but then they had to just be talking about the visible universe again.
Because if we knew that then we could easily calculate the entire size.

our visible universe could be as big as 180billion light years wide, with about 100billion galaxies, any suggestion then to the full size of the universe?

"the visible universe is approximately 93 billion light years wide. the full universe is estimated about 156 billion light years wide."
- that was my answer, but i was actually misguided by the article linked to on sources, because that was also about the visible universe when you read on.

"Here is the formula: Estimated age of universe * Esitmated speed of expansion * 2 = Size of universie in light years."
- hmm... that seems logical.. but how can it be *2 if it does not have a center?
but if thats the case, whats the calculated answer?

Answer 1

the visible universe is approximately 93 billion light years wide. the full universe is estimated about 156 billion light years wide.

Answer 2

All physicists wil tell you that they just don't know what the actual size of the entire universe is, it appears to be sort of a 'million dollar' question. We know our hubble volume (4*10 to the 26 meters- the visible universe) and we know that volume grows at an inceasing rate. If we knew the answer, we would have enough information to find out once and for all the fate of the universe (the part we can see as well as what we can't). Even many quantum physicists entertain the many worlds theory, in which at a quantum level, each possible path or action that can be taken is, and all paths cancel save one. The effect of this on a large scale could mean that the atomic pattern and makeup in the visible universe could very well be repeated again and again with variations so long as the fabric of the universe itself does not change (the laws of physics and such). That is the definition of a type one multiverse- 'parallel universes' outside our hubble volume.
There are 4 kinds (all theories of course- level two is membrane universes like soap bubbles where different laws of physics may apply etc etc)
Many physicists now accept the big splat version of the big bang, which still encompasses Alan Guth's theory of inflation, in which the universe expanded faster than light near the very beginning. When it all cooled down, (380,000 years later) The cosmic radiation left behind clearly showed the fingerprint of this faster than light expansion, as well as leading us closer to a theory that tells us what occured before the planck time. The cosmic microwave background may interest you, it's the best 'proof' we have right now of the bang. You can google it up, I did. Or read After Cobe and before the Big Bang by John Gribbin.
It is interesting that you bring up the fact that they always say 'the universe has no edge and no center'. It occured to me that may only be because we can't see the edge but we know we're not in the middle. I guess I can't really address that but you've got me thinking.

Answer 3

The universe is a finite entity,it had a beginning and it will have an end.
It must,therefore have a maximum size.
The universe began as a single space-time pulse of minimum size and duration.
It was spawned from nothing that contained a finite potential.
It accelerated to the speed of light and expanded radially from there.
The acceleration lasted for one-thirty billionths of a second,and attained a diameter of about the size of a plum.
It contained all the ingredients needed to evolve into the universe we see and experience to-day.
The universe must be nearly 6 billion years old,this would give it a diameter of about 12 billion light years.
It could be much older but no bigger.
The farthest galaxies the Hubble sees to-day do not exist anymore.
The interpretation of the red shift from these galaxies is incorrect.
Galaxies are an end stage in the evolution of the universe and the red shift would be the same no matter what side the galaxy was viewed from,so the accelerated expansion does not exist.
When the space-time pulse,that initiated this universe,stops the universe will begins it's slide to extinction..

Answer 4

Space is infinite. The Universe is not. There are perhaps Multiverse's. Our's must have a width.

Here is the formula: Esitmated age of universe * Esitmated speed of expansion in light years * 2 = Size of universie in light years.

Answer 5

To assume that the radius of the universe is 15 billion light years assumes that the universe is expanding at the speed of light. I doubt it. We also do not know the geometry of the universe. Is it a sphere? A torus? A Klein Bottle? Until we have some information on the geometry, size is a meaningless question.

Answer 6

at the start, the Universe does no longer have a "finished length", that assertion purely placed your credibility interior the hollow. Secondly, The Universe is increasing and it fairly is been shown with the aid of test. as an example, in case you related tape to 2 galaxies, you may discover, over the years, that the tape could stretch. the comparable ingredient occurs with mild. mild stretches into longer wave lengths via fact the Universe expands and strikes in direction of the purple spectrum of seen mild. the thought of Relativity is split into 2 areas, particular Relativity and ordinary Relativity. the thought of standard Relativity helped Edwin Hubble, in 1928, tutor that the Universe is unquestionably increasing. He proved that the Universe isn't static, or unmoving. ordinary Relativity explains that count number travels in a quickly line in area, yet seems to be accelerating via curved nature of area. particular Relativity explains the consequence that gravity has on area. ordinary Relativity allowed for a proof of ways the mass of an merchandise could be transmitted with the aid of area. the thought of Relativity does not supply a particular rule that would shrink the quantity of time it could have taken for the universe to boost. fairly, scientists use the thought to make extra theories with regard to the universe and attempt to elect those with the least anomalies. P.S. the thought of Relativity isn't a regulation.

Answer 7

nobody has written an article on the shape of the premodial atom that produced the big bang, was it like a nozzle, and the energy gushed out in that manner or did it pop like a suspended hand grenade and send energy in all directions, it seems to me that the shape of the universe can't be determined without that information.

Answer 8

Not important to know the dimension of the universe, when such universe is all wrinkled and not flat... Then again, how could we really measure such universe if he is not contained...
If the universe is an open one, then you have a problem. Personnally, I do believe in the Multiverse theory...

Answer 9

speed of light x time of big bang=size of universe

Answer 10

Here is a useful site