The blog post is actually a lot more interesting than much of the discussion here.<p>The author knows perfectly well that the observable universe is finite. So the question is about sensible models for what happens beyond.
I felt like the blog post got cut off. It felt like it was leading up to some statement, as they outlined how a small curved universe would be identified through patterns etc etc, even link a paper they wrote on it…… then…… nothing. Did I miss something crucial in the reading?<p>Edit:<p>Reading the paper they found correlations indicative of a non flat space but could be explained by other factors and noise. So it wasn’t conclusive but left open the door for curved space and a small universe.
That blog feels like it's from a small universe -- a narrow ribbon of text, surrounded by great voids. It would be fine, I suppose, even praiseworthy, if we were still reading on paper, as it would provide ample space for any marvelous proofs we might contrive. But on a blog page? Why?!
My money is on living in a simulation with lazy evaluation and constraints like maximum speed to prevent us from consuming too many resources. Intelligent species seem to love making simulations, so what are the chances we happen to be the first one outside of any?
Surely we could have selected a better adjective than "small" to describe something that is 93 billion light years across at the lower bound?
From a layman that enjoys scifi, I always thought universe appears to be infinite because we are in a lower dimension. Gravity is a product of interaction between parallel 3D universes. And dark matter is just matter from other universes. Is there any basis to this theory or am I over simplifying it.
We don’t assume it’s infinite, we assume it’s expanding. That’s the reason why there is supposed to be an end to the universe, I.e: the Big Bang and the Big Crunch<p>As for physical distance, that’s very large. Relativity is about time not space.