If the universe had a limitation to it's size, what do you think would happen, if any particle got near it?

I don't vote... I can't make up a theory that would be right... It can be anything...

The same as what happens when you get suck into a black hole, I might get to lay on a beach with a glass of coca cola next to me on a table. But I can also be tore apart and dissapear in the 'nothingness'.

There is no acceptable theory for this fact. That's the only thing I can say about it. And I can't say it's 'something else' that happens with the universe, because I don't know. Theories should lead to proof, and proof should lead to theories about 'why?' and not much more.

And of course, a lot of people will disagree... :p

About this: The particle would break down into smaller parts.

That's an odd way to think, even if the particle would break down into smaller parts, what would happen to the smaller parts?? They would break down into smaller parts, and those parts would break down to smaller parts too etc. etc. So it would be an endingless process :) So if that would happen, and the parts would still be in movement, the universe HAS to expand, or the parts have to vanish. Just dissapear...

So one of the theories is already sort of (not completely) 'disproven'. And why would the particle be repelled, it would be done by a force that's unexplainable, so sceptics would start yelling at us that we are stupid. Next, transferring it to another universe would bring up the question: what's with that universe, where does it begin/end, is it the same as our universe, etc. etc.

I suspect that if the universe has boundries a particle would simply keep going within the boundries curvature eventually passing its own path. My feeling is, however, the there are no detectable boundries of the universe.

My feeling is, however, the there are no detectable boundries of the universe.

I think so too, even if there were, humans would probably never find it... :)

The particle would break down into smaller parts.

That's an odd way to think, even if the particle would break down into smaller parts, what would happen to the smaller parts?? They would break down into smaller parts, and those parts would break down to smaller parts too etc. etc. So it would be an endingless process :) So if that would happen, and the parts would still be in movement, the universe HAS to expand, or the parts have to vanish. Just dissapear...
By some theories, if a particle keeps on breaking down into smaller parts, eventually only energy will be left.


I suspect that if the universe has boundries a particle would simply keep going within the boundries curvature eventually passing its own path. My feeling is, however, the there are no detectable boundries of the universe.
Well, if the particle would keep on curving, but the boundries, is the particle not being repelled in some way? ..and particle repelling goes against what The Webber said, of the particle repelling against an unexplainable force...
I also believe that there are not boundries of the universe.

By some theories, if a particle keeps on breaking down into smaller parts, eventually only energy will be left.

If that's true, the question "what is energy?" is answered too. Though I don't believe those (I mean the small parts) are the things that keeps us (organisms) alive. There's something more complicated about energy, someday someone will be able to explain. I'm sure...

Well, if the particle would keep on curving, but the boundries, is the particle not being repelled in some way? ..and particle repelling goes against what The Webber said, of the particle repelling against an unexplainable force...

Yea, even when it would exist, what would be the source? What would be the type of energy? Psi? No one knows, and maybe no one will ever know. Maybe it doesn't even exist in this way, so speculating doesn't really give an answer in this case.

There's something more complicated about energy, someday someone will be able to explain. I'm sure...
Maybe instead of simply being a property of a thing, energy is a thing in and of itself.

Maybe instead of simply being a property of a thing, energy is a thing in and of itself.

Yep, I share that opinion/theory with you :) Good one!

sry, slightly off topic

@Vern

If you say that energy is a `thing`.
Is that the same as saying that <b>mass</b> is a thing?
And how do you relate that, to the four forces in our universe?

<font color=blue>< info ></font>
Gauge bosons are the elementary `<i>particles</i>` with integral spin which act as the carriers of the fundamental forces.
The W vector bosons mediate the weak force, the pions & gluons the strong force, photons the electromagnetic force, and the `graviton/higgs` the gravitational force.
<font color=blue>< /info ></font>

Ultimately, I believe that these four forces are just aspects of one `super force, and are just the `interaction` of different dimensions (aka membranes)

But how that relates to mass/energy, I don’t know…
;)

its this kind of brain hurting stuff that makes me hope the universe is in spherical geometry and would circle back on its self. ergo, something could never get to the "end", it would just end up back where is started (like old atari games, when you leave the right side of the screen you just come back on the left).

ComputerPsi, you must obey the rules: General Relativity
You must consider the observations: the universe is spatially flat
The Concordance model is spatially flat, this is one of the reasons that is considered the Standard Model. The Concordance Model describes an universe infinite in extension, so no barriers
I beg you to show me a solution to the Einstein equations describing an universe with a boundary

ComputerPsi, you must obey the rules: General Relativity
You must consider the observations: the universe is spatially flat
The Concordance model is spatially flat, this is one of the reasons that is considered the Standard Model. The Concordance Model describes an universe infinite in extension, so no barriers
I beg you to show me a solution to the Einstein equations describing an universe with a boundary
I never said that the universe had a boundary. I'm just looking at some of the problems/questions that would occur if it did had a boundary.

If you say that energy is a `thing`.
Is that the same as saying that mass is a thing?
And how do you relate that, to the four forces in our universe?
Nope; if energy is a thing, then mass is energy, simply in quantum chunks. I keep going back to Einstein's description of Maxwell's theory:The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field The EMF, of course, is pure energy.

Nope; if energy is a thing, then mass is energy, simply in quantum chunks. I keep going back to Einstein's description of Maxwell's theory:
"The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field"
The EMF, of course, is pure energy.

Here is where, in my niave way, I disagree with Einstein. Not with your satement, Vern, that the EM field is pure energy, but with Einstein's statement that it is the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality.
It seems to me that Einstein was obsessed with light, with the electromagnetic field. Einstein could not explain how gravity originated,
what it was, or the 'action at a distance', so he eliminated it as a 'force'
and used geodesics, as one example, to describe gravity's effects. In my
opinion, and I assume much of science's, gravity is not an EM force or effect.
It is a fundamental force, a property of the fundamental particles, quarks or
whatever. Is a quark composed of electromagnetic energy? I do not think so
myself, energy maybe, but not electromagnetic in this fundamental form.
I think the EM field is a product of motion, of an electron orbiting the nucleus
of an atom, for example. A second order field in other words, not fundamental.
A single, lone quark could not emitt a photon, electromagnetic energy. Would
the quark simply absorb a photon that fell upon it without emitting another
in response, like an electron? Or would the photon simply bypass, go around
the quark with no effect? I don't know, but one or the other should describe
Dark Matter, non-fermonic Dark Matter fairly closely. This form of Dark Matter
neither emitts nor reflects any detectable portion of the electromagnetic
spectrum. It is only detectable by its gravitational effects. Gravity is still there, still affecting its surroundings. I guess I am asking, would exotic Dark
Matter be composed of fundamental particles with no orbiting electrons?
What of the constiutents of a black hole within its event horizon? Speculation
would lead me to believe there may be fundamental particles there, just no
electrons or other second order particles. Sorry for all this speculation, it was
just something that crossed my mind, the mind of a layman naturally!