What is the “fullest” the universe could be in terms of living space?












2














Lets take a civilization that has surpassed the type III on the Kardashev scale. It has the following assumptions:




  • It harnesses the energy of entire Galaxies,

  • its populace did not transcend. If you need a reason: passed a certain point of intelligence biological life sees no reason to live and dies off so they avoid getting smart enough.

  • The civilization has found a material strong enough to build space elevators and Dyson Spheres.

  • The civilization can create matter and energy from nothing, otherwise all natural laws are still "normal".


The civilization expands across the galaxy and galaxies around it. As the population grows the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go?



With such powers it would be easy to fill the universe with Dyson Spheres. But could they go further? I imagined a galaxy where the planets/Dyson Spheres stop rotating (or have a rotating connection at the poles if the rotation is important) and solar systems are connected with "bridges" that can house trillions upon trillions. Eventually Gravity will be the limiting factor, as mass would cause the structure to collapse in on itself to form a new planet and if too much matter is in one place it'll eventually form Black holes. On the other hand there's also the expansion of the universe to consider and what it would do to such a Galaxy...



So what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like, without it collapsing in on itself or breaking apart?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Is there a worldbuilding question here that can be objectively answered with a clear judgment as to which is the best answer? We don't have a definitive way of ascertaining how much mass is in the universe, but you want to know how much of it could be "filled?" Why are you asking the question? What rule of your world/universe are you concerned about? And, most of all, whether you use our definition or SE's, how is this not POB?
    – JBH
    5 hours ago










  • You could fill at as much as you want, as long as the habitats are small enough that they don't turn into black holes, and far enough apart that acceleration from orbiting habitation modules doesn't turn its people to mush. What is this exact number is? I don't know. And it will certainly vary by materials used.
    – Tyler S. Loeper
    5 hours ago












  • @JBH the answer that offers the most liveable space. The current mass in the universe doesnt matter as the mass can be created out of nothing. I'm asking the question because I want to know how far I could go in that direction for a story setting. The rules I'm concerned about is any rules that have to be considered to answer "the limit of liveable space crammed in a Galaxy". Its no different than many questions on Dysonspheres for example I've seen (which also almost always lack rules like orbital mechanics and the like). only the scale is bigger.
    – Demigan
    5 hours ago










  • mass can be created out of nothing No it can't, e=mc2 is not a Star Trek transporter proof. Dysonspheres are intrinsically limited. The maximum living space of the galaxy/universe is not. This question cannot be answered with the science-based tag. It's pure fiction. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? As many as [you the author] wanting. Also, which question are you asking? the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go? or what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like?
    – JBH
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    The problem is that you're using the science-based tag, which forces the answers to conform to a fundamental reality. The tag combination is not doing what you think it does. There's currently a meta discussion about whether or not to keep the science-fiction tag because it's not as clear you you're supposing.
    – JBH
    3 hours ago


















2














Lets take a civilization that has surpassed the type III on the Kardashev scale. It has the following assumptions:




  • It harnesses the energy of entire Galaxies,

  • its populace did not transcend. If you need a reason: passed a certain point of intelligence biological life sees no reason to live and dies off so they avoid getting smart enough.

  • The civilization has found a material strong enough to build space elevators and Dyson Spheres.

  • The civilization can create matter and energy from nothing, otherwise all natural laws are still "normal".


The civilization expands across the galaxy and galaxies around it. As the population grows the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go?



With such powers it would be easy to fill the universe with Dyson Spheres. But could they go further? I imagined a galaxy where the planets/Dyson Spheres stop rotating (or have a rotating connection at the poles if the rotation is important) and solar systems are connected with "bridges" that can house trillions upon trillions. Eventually Gravity will be the limiting factor, as mass would cause the structure to collapse in on itself to form a new planet and if too much matter is in one place it'll eventually form Black holes. On the other hand there's also the expansion of the universe to consider and what it would do to such a Galaxy...



So what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like, without it collapsing in on itself or breaking apart?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Is there a worldbuilding question here that can be objectively answered with a clear judgment as to which is the best answer? We don't have a definitive way of ascertaining how much mass is in the universe, but you want to know how much of it could be "filled?" Why are you asking the question? What rule of your world/universe are you concerned about? And, most of all, whether you use our definition or SE's, how is this not POB?
    – JBH
    5 hours ago










  • You could fill at as much as you want, as long as the habitats are small enough that they don't turn into black holes, and far enough apart that acceleration from orbiting habitation modules doesn't turn its people to mush. What is this exact number is? I don't know. And it will certainly vary by materials used.
    – Tyler S. Loeper
    5 hours ago












  • @JBH the answer that offers the most liveable space. The current mass in the universe doesnt matter as the mass can be created out of nothing. I'm asking the question because I want to know how far I could go in that direction for a story setting. The rules I'm concerned about is any rules that have to be considered to answer "the limit of liveable space crammed in a Galaxy". Its no different than many questions on Dysonspheres for example I've seen (which also almost always lack rules like orbital mechanics and the like). only the scale is bigger.
    – Demigan
    5 hours ago










  • mass can be created out of nothing No it can't, e=mc2 is not a Star Trek transporter proof. Dysonspheres are intrinsically limited. The maximum living space of the galaxy/universe is not. This question cannot be answered with the science-based tag. It's pure fiction. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? As many as [you the author] wanting. Also, which question are you asking? the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go? or what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like?
    – JBH
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    The problem is that you're using the science-based tag, which forces the answers to conform to a fundamental reality. The tag combination is not doing what you think it does. There's currently a meta discussion about whether or not to keep the science-fiction tag because it's not as clear you you're supposing.
    – JBH
    3 hours ago
















2












2








2







Lets take a civilization that has surpassed the type III on the Kardashev scale. It has the following assumptions:




  • It harnesses the energy of entire Galaxies,

  • its populace did not transcend. If you need a reason: passed a certain point of intelligence biological life sees no reason to live and dies off so they avoid getting smart enough.

  • The civilization has found a material strong enough to build space elevators and Dyson Spheres.

  • The civilization can create matter and energy from nothing, otherwise all natural laws are still "normal".


The civilization expands across the galaxy and galaxies around it. As the population grows the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go?



With such powers it would be easy to fill the universe with Dyson Spheres. But could they go further? I imagined a galaxy where the planets/Dyson Spheres stop rotating (or have a rotating connection at the poles if the rotation is important) and solar systems are connected with "bridges" that can house trillions upon trillions. Eventually Gravity will be the limiting factor, as mass would cause the structure to collapse in on itself to form a new planet and if too much matter is in one place it'll eventually form Black holes. On the other hand there's also the expansion of the universe to consider and what it would do to such a Galaxy...



So what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like, without it collapsing in on itself or breaking apart?










share|improve this question















Lets take a civilization that has surpassed the type III on the Kardashev scale. It has the following assumptions:




  • It harnesses the energy of entire Galaxies,

  • its populace did not transcend. If you need a reason: passed a certain point of intelligence biological life sees no reason to live and dies off so they avoid getting smart enough.

  • The civilization has found a material strong enough to build space elevators and Dyson Spheres.

  • The civilization can create matter and energy from nothing, otherwise all natural laws are still "normal".


The civilization expands across the galaxy and galaxies around it. As the population grows the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go?



With such powers it would be easy to fill the universe with Dyson Spheres. But could they go further? I imagined a galaxy where the planets/Dyson Spheres stop rotating (or have a rotating connection at the poles if the rotation is important) and solar systems are connected with "bridges" that can house trillions upon trillions. Eventually Gravity will be the limiting factor, as mass would cause the structure to collapse in on itself to form a new planet and if too much matter is in one place it'll eventually form Black holes. On the other hand there's also the expansion of the universe to consider and what it would do to such a Galaxy...



So what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like, without it collapsing in on itself or breaking apart?







science-based science-fiction environment gravity galactic






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









T.J.L.

914919




914919










asked 5 hours ago









DemiganDemigan

7,5651639




7,5651639








  • 1




    Is there a worldbuilding question here that can be objectively answered with a clear judgment as to which is the best answer? We don't have a definitive way of ascertaining how much mass is in the universe, but you want to know how much of it could be "filled?" Why are you asking the question? What rule of your world/universe are you concerned about? And, most of all, whether you use our definition or SE's, how is this not POB?
    – JBH
    5 hours ago










  • You could fill at as much as you want, as long as the habitats are small enough that they don't turn into black holes, and far enough apart that acceleration from orbiting habitation modules doesn't turn its people to mush. What is this exact number is? I don't know. And it will certainly vary by materials used.
    – Tyler S. Loeper
    5 hours ago












  • @JBH the answer that offers the most liveable space. The current mass in the universe doesnt matter as the mass can be created out of nothing. I'm asking the question because I want to know how far I could go in that direction for a story setting. The rules I'm concerned about is any rules that have to be considered to answer "the limit of liveable space crammed in a Galaxy". Its no different than many questions on Dysonspheres for example I've seen (which also almost always lack rules like orbital mechanics and the like). only the scale is bigger.
    – Demigan
    5 hours ago










  • mass can be created out of nothing No it can't, e=mc2 is not a Star Trek transporter proof. Dysonspheres are intrinsically limited. The maximum living space of the galaxy/universe is not. This question cannot be answered with the science-based tag. It's pure fiction. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? As many as [you the author] wanting. Also, which question are you asking? the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go? or what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like?
    – JBH
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    The problem is that you're using the science-based tag, which forces the answers to conform to a fundamental reality. The tag combination is not doing what you think it does. There's currently a meta discussion about whether or not to keep the science-fiction tag because it's not as clear you you're supposing.
    – JBH
    3 hours ago
















  • 1




    Is there a worldbuilding question here that can be objectively answered with a clear judgment as to which is the best answer? We don't have a definitive way of ascertaining how much mass is in the universe, but you want to know how much of it could be "filled?" Why are you asking the question? What rule of your world/universe are you concerned about? And, most of all, whether you use our definition or SE's, how is this not POB?
    – JBH
    5 hours ago










  • You could fill at as much as you want, as long as the habitats are small enough that they don't turn into black holes, and far enough apart that acceleration from orbiting habitation modules doesn't turn its people to mush. What is this exact number is? I don't know. And it will certainly vary by materials used.
    – Tyler S. Loeper
    5 hours ago












  • @JBH the answer that offers the most liveable space. The current mass in the universe doesnt matter as the mass can be created out of nothing. I'm asking the question because I want to know how far I could go in that direction for a story setting. The rules I'm concerned about is any rules that have to be considered to answer "the limit of liveable space crammed in a Galaxy". Its no different than many questions on Dysonspheres for example I've seen (which also almost always lack rules like orbital mechanics and the like). only the scale is bigger.
    – Demigan
    5 hours ago










  • mass can be created out of nothing No it can't, e=mc2 is not a Star Trek transporter proof. Dysonspheres are intrinsically limited. The maximum living space of the galaxy/universe is not. This question cannot be answered with the science-based tag. It's pure fiction. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? As many as [you the author] wanting. Also, which question are you asking? the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go? or what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like?
    – JBH
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    The problem is that you're using the science-based tag, which forces the answers to conform to a fundamental reality. The tag combination is not doing what you think it does. There's currently a meta discussion about whether or not to keep the science-fiction tag because it's not as clear you you're supposing.
    – JBH
    3 hours ago










1




1




Is there a worldbuilding question here that can be objectively answered with a clear judgment as to which is the best answer? We don't have a definitive way of ascertaining how much mass is in the universe, but you want to know how much of it could be "filled?" Why are you asking the question? What rule of your world/universe are you concerned about? And, most of all, whether you use our definition or SE's, how is this not POB?
– JBH
5 hours ago




Is there a worldbuilding question here that can be objectively answered with a clear judgment as to which is the best answer? We don't have a definitive way of ascertaining how much mass is in the universe, but you want to know how much of it could be "filled?" Why are you asking the question? What rule of your world/universe are you concerned about? And, most of all, whether you use our definition or SE's, how is this not POB?
– JBH
5 hours ago












You could fill at as much as you want, as long as the habitats are small enough that they don't turn into black holes, and far enough apart that acceleration from orbiting habitation modules doesn't turn its people to mush. What is this exact number is? I don't know. And it will certainly vary by materials used.
– Tyler S. Loeper
5 hours ago






You could fill at as much as you want, as long as the habitats are small enough that they don't turn into black holes, and far enough apart that acceleration from orbiting habitation modules doesn't turn its people to mush. What is this exact number is? I don't know. And it will certainly vary by materials used.
– Tyler S. Loeper
5 hours ago














@JBH the answer that offers the most liveable space. The current mass in the universe doesnt matter as the mass can be created out of nothing. I'm asking the question because I want to know how far I could go in that direction for a story setting. The rules I'm concerned about is any rules that have to be considered to answer "the limit of liveable space crammed in a Galaxy". Its no different than many questions on Dysonspheres for example I've seen (which also almost always lack rules like orbital mechanics and the like). only the scale is bigger.
– Demigan
5 hours ago




@JBH the answer that offers the most liveable space. The current mass in the universe doesnt matter as the mass can be created out of nothing. I'm asking the question because I want to know how far I could go in that direction for a story setting. The rules I'm concerned about is any rules that have to be considered to answer "the limit of liveable space crammed in a Galaxy". Its no different than many questions on Dysonspheres for example I've seen (which also almost always lack rules like orbital mechanics and the like). only the scale is bigger.
– Demigan
5 hours ago












mass can be created out of nothing No it can't, e=mc2 is not a Star Trek transporter proof. Dysonspheres are intrinsically limited. The maximum living space of the galaxy/universe is not. This question cannot be answered with the science-based tag. It's pure fiction. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? As many as [you the author] wanting. Also, which question are you asking? the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go? or what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like?
– JBH
5 hours ago






mass can be created out of nothing No it can't, e=mc2 is not a Star Trek transporter proof. Dysonspheres are intrinsically limited. The maximum living space of the galaxy/universe is not. This question cannot be answered with the science-based tag. It's pure fiction. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? As many as [you the author] wanting. Also, which question are you asking? the civilization decides to fill the universe with matter to make as much living space as possible. The question is, how far can they go? or what would the fullest most liveable Galaxy look like?
– JBH
5 hours ago






1




1




The problem is that you're using the science-based tag, which forces the answers to conform to a fundamental reality. The tag combination is not doing what you think it does. There's currently a meta discussion about whether or not to keep the science-fiction tag because it's not as clear you you're supposing.
– JBH
3 hours ago






The problem is that you're using the science-based tag, which forces the answers to conform to a fundamental reality. The tag combination is not doing what you think it does. There's currently a meta discussion about whether or not to keep the science-fiction tag because it's not as clear you you're supposing.
– JBH
3 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5














If your civilization can create matter and energy out of nothing (violating conservation of mass and mass-energy equivalence), then your limit is immaterial. The universe's expansion is driven by energy. If you can create infinite energy, you can expand the universe to an unlimited degree, because the added mass can be counterbalanced.



Assuming your materials are as nigh-magical as they appear to be, then take the available volume of the universe ($4 times 10^{80} m^3$), divide by the space of a luxury apartment + amenities, which for convenience we'll set to ${1000}m^3$, and you have housing for $10^{77}$ humans, plus three times that space to grow food for them, assuming you can't just conjure that out of thin air as well. Gravitational collapse is not a problem, since stresses will be identical in all directions and the entirety of the universe will remain mostly empty space. Your only real problem will be getting rid of heat, but if you can create matter and energy, that seems like a bagatelle.



Effectively an infinite apartment building. There's probably a horror movie like that.





Edit: It's worth pointing out that we're assuming your humans have solved FTL travel, because if they haven't, their magical abilities aside, they're never going to populate even a small corner of the universe.






share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    You don't need space to grow food, it can be created out of nothing. +1 for forcing me to look up the word bagatelle.
    – JBH
    4 hours ago










  • And an upvote on the comment for pointing out my misspelling! Also, if you don't need that extra space for food... I dunno, nigh-infinite amusement parks?
    – jdunlop
    4 hours ago












  • That's the problem with this question, it really is an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" question.
    – JBH
    4 hours ago










  • How do you build this universe then? You dont start with a full universe so it wont start pulling from all directions until you had time to fill it. And similar to the existing universe where supposedly all matter also pulls on each other, places with more dense matter pulls harder and causes it to collapse into planets, suns and Black holes.
    – Demigan
    4 hours ago










  • @Demigan - it only collapses inward because there's no force acting against it collapsing inward. As more matter is attracted, greater force is exerted on the body as a whole, allowing for increasing density in the centre, and so forth. This cannot happen if you're building the Universe of Apartments. Using the Willis Tower (since I have values for that), the density of a skyscraper is somewhere around 800kg/m^3 - less than the density of water!
    – jdunlop
    2 hours ago



















2















The civilization can create matter and energy from nothing




If they can pull out stuff and energy from their aethers impunely, they can create a singularities that expand at light-speed if they so wish.



Simply put, if they use technology to make something out of nothing, they can create ever more machines that do it. The amount of mass they can create grows exponentially. The only limiting factor to what they can do would be the speed of light, and they can go past that if they develop the means for FTL travel.



So the amount of livable space they can make is up to what they call livable. Some people in Asia find it normal to sleep in pod hotels, whereas I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there.



If your people really like each other, then as long as gravity is not enough to knock them out you can keep expanding. Food is not a problem - you can just conjure stuff out of nothing, and then turn excrements into EM energy and send it towards the edge of the observable universe.



And who the Hades builds Dyson machinery when you have energy out of nothing?






share|improve this answer





















  • I don't know what to do here. +1 just for saying I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there. Amen, brother. On the other hand, -1 for posting a comment as an answer. But, sometimes comments are simply two small to explain why there are problems. Therfore, +1 for being a sensible frame challenge.
    – JBH
    5 hours ago










  • The question is about creating livingspace, not how that space is divided between the people of the civilization. Livingspace could be trillions of habitats, or planets, or Dysonspheres, or whatever offers the most livingspace. I would like to know which would be the best, or if something else is better.
    – Demigan
    4 hours ago



















0














It would seem to stand to reason that the goal ought not to be to build one single super-sized galaxy, but a series of regular or slightly larger than normal sized galaxies that exist together (yet independently) in a super cluster.



Superclusters are so large that the galaxies continue spreading outward with the universe. To illustrate, if you imagine, say for example, ten galaxies in a supercluster represented as ten dots made by a marker on a partially blown up balloon. As the balloon (the universe) is blown up further (expands) the dots (galaxies) will spread away from each other. During this time, you could be busily drawing the dots larger (building the galaxies larger), seemingly infinitely. The larger the dots (galaxies) become on the balloon (universe), the more over all space is taken up. But you do so in such a way that the percentage of the balloon (universe) that is filled with these dots (your supercluster) never actually increases or decreases, as it keeps pace with the expansion of the balloon (universe). Follow me?



In short, your answer is probably "a super cluster, adjusted for inflation"






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Adam Klatt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136028%2fwhat-is-the-fullest-the-universe-could-be-in-terms-of-living-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5














    If your civilization can create matter and energy out of nothing (violating conservation of mass and mass-energy equivalence), then your limit is immaterial. The universe's expansion is driven by energy. If you can create infinite energy, you can expand the universe to an unlimited degree, because the added mass can be counterbalanced.



    Assuming your materials are as nigh-magical as they appear to be, then take the available volume of the universe ($4 times 10^{80} m^3$), divide by the space of a luxury apartment + amenities, which for convenience we'll set to ${1000}m^3$, and you have housing for $10^{77}$ humans, plus three times that space to grow food for them, assuming you can't just conjure that out of thin air as well. Gravitational collapse is not a problem, since stresses will be identical in all directions and the entirety of the universe will remain mostly empty space. Your only real problem will be getting rid of heat, but if you can create matter and energy, that seems like a bagatelle.



    Effectively an infinite apartment building. There's probably a horror movie like that.





    Edit: It's worth pointing out that we're assuming your humans have solved FTL travel, because if they haven't, their magical abilities aside, they're never going to populate even a small corner of the universe.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3




      You don't need space to grow food, it can be created out of nothing. +1 for forcing me to look up the word bagatelle.
      – JBH
      4 hours ago










    • And an upvote on the comment for pointing out my misspelling! Also, if you don't need that extra space for food... I dunno, nigh-infinite amusement parks?
      – jdunlop
      4 hours ago












    • That's the problem with this question, it really is an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" question.
      – JBH
      4 hours ago










    • How do you build this universe then? You dont start with a full universe so it wont start pulling from all directions until you had time to fill it. And similar to the existing universe where supposedly all matter also pulls on each other, places with more dense matter pulls harder and causes it to collapse into planets, suns and Black holes.
      – Demigan
      4 hours ago










    • @Demigan - it only collapses inward because there's no force acting against it collapsing inward. As more matter is attracted, greater force is exerted on the body as a whole, allowing for increasing density in the centre, and so forth. This cannot happen if you're building the Universe of Apartments. Using the Willis Tower (since I have values for that), the density of a skyscraper is somewhere around 800kg/m^3 - less than the density of water!
      – jdunlop
      2 hours ago
















    5














    If your civilization can create matter and energy out of nothing (violating conservation of mass and mass-energy equivalence), then your limit is immaterial. The universe's expansion is driven by energy. If you can create infinite energy, you can expand the universe to an unlimited degree, because the added mass can be counterbalanced.



    Assuming your materials are as nigh-magical as they appear to be, then take the available volume of the universe ($4 times 10^{80} m^3$), divide by the space of a luxury apartment + amenities, which for convenience we'll set to ${1000}m^3$, and you have housing for $10^{77}$ humans, plus three times that space to grow food for them, assuming you can't just conjure that out of thin air as well. Gravitational collapse is not a problem, since stresses will be identical in all directions and the entirety of the universe will remain mostly empty space. Your only real problem will be getting rid of heat, but if you can create matter and energy, that seems like a bagatelle.



    Effectively an infinite apartment building. There's probably a horror movie like that.





    Edit: It's worth pointing out that we're assuming your humans have solved FTL travel, because if they haven't, their magical abilities aside, they're never going to populate even a small corner of the universe.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3




      You don't need space to grow food, it can be created out of nothing. +1 for forcing me to look up the word bagatelle.
      – JBH
      4 hours ago










    • And an upvote on the comment for pointing out my misspelling! Also, if you don't need that extra space for food... I dunno, nigh-infinite amusement parks?
      – jdunlop
      4 hours ago












    • That's the problem with this question, it really is an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" question.
      – JBH
      4 hours ago










    • How do you build this universe then? You dont start with a full universe so it wont start pulling from all directions until you had time to fill it. And similar to the existing universe where supposedly all matter also pulls on each other, places with more dense matter pulls harder and causes it to collapse into planets, suns and Black holes.
      – Demigan
      4 hours ago










    • @Demigan - it only collapses inward because there's no force acting against it collapsing inward. As more matter is attracted, greater force is exerted on the body as a whole, allowing for increasing density in the centre, and so forth. This cannot happen if you're building the Universe of Apartments. Using the Willis Tower (since I have values for that), the density of a skyscraper is somewhere around 800kg/m^3 - less than the density of water!
      – jdunlop
      2 hours ago














    5












    5








    5






    If your civilization can create matter and energy out of nothing (violating conservation of mass and mass-energy equivalence), then your limit is immaterial. The universe's expansion is driven by energy. If you can create infinite energy, you can expand the universe to an unlimited degree, because the added mass can be counterbalanced.



    Assuming your materials are as nigh-magical as they appear to be, then take the available volume of the universe ($4 times 10^{80} m^3$), divide by the space of a luxury apartment + amenities, which for convenience we'll set to ${1000}m^3$, and you have housing for $10^{77}$ humans, plus three times that space to grow food for them, assuming you can't just conjure that out of thin air as well. Gravitational collapse is not a problem, since stresses will be identical in all directions and the entirety of the universe will remain mostly empty space. Your only real problem will be getting rid of heat, but if you can create matter and energy, that seems like a bagatelle.



    Effectively an infinite apartment building. There's probably a horror movie like that.





    Edit: It's worth pointing out that we're assuming your humans have solved FTL travel, because if they haven't, their magical abilities aside, they're never going to populate even a small corner of the universe.






    share|improve this answer














    If your civilization can create matter and energy out of nothing (violating conservation of mass and mass-energy equivalence), then your limit is immaterial. The universe's expansion is driven by energy. If you can create infinite energy, you can expand the universe to an unlimited degree, because the added mass can be counterbalanced.



    Assuming your materials are as nigh-magical as they appear to be, then take the available volume of the universe ($4 times 10^{80} m^3$), divide by the space of a luxury apartment + amenities, which for convenience we'll set to ${1000}m^3$, and you have housing for $10^{77}$ humans, plus three times that space to grow food for them, assuming you can't just conjure that out of thin air as well. Gravitational collapse is not a problem, since stresses will be identical in all directions and the entirety of the universe will remain mostly empty space. Your only real problem will be getting rid of heat, but if you can create matter and energy, that seems like a bagatelle.



    Effectively an infinite apartment building. There's probably a horror movie like that.





    Edit: It's worth pointing out that we're assuming your humans have solved FTL travel, because if they haven't, their magical abilities aside, they're never going to populate even a small corner of the universe.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 4 hours ago

























    answered 5 hours ago









    jdunlopjdunlop

    7,23511542




    7,23511542








    • 3




      You don't need space to grow food, it can be created out of nothing. +1 for forcing me to look up the word bagatelle.
      – JBH
      4 hours ago










    • And an upvote on the comment for pointing out my misspelling! Also, if you don't need that extra space for food... I dunno, nigh-infinite amusement parks?
      – jdunlop
      4 hours ago












    • That's the problem with this question, it really is an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" question.
      – JBH
      4 hours ago










    • How do you build this universe then? You dont start with a full universe so it wont start pulling from all directions until you had time to fill it. And similar to the existing universe where supposedly all matter also pulls on each other, places with more dense matter pulls harder and causes it to collapse into planets, suns and Black holes.
      – Demigan
      4 hours ago










    • @Demigan - it only collapses inward because there's no force acting against it collapsing inward. As more matter is attracted, greater force is exerted on the body as a whole, allowing for increasing density in the centre, and so forth. This cannot happen if you're building the Universe of Apartments. Using the Willis Tower (since I have values for that), the density of a skyscraper is somewhere around 800kg/m^3 - less than the density of water!
      – jdunlop
      2 hours ago














    • 3




      You don't need space to grow food, it can be created out of nothing. +1 for forcing me to look up the word bagatelle.
      – JBH
      4 hours ago










    • And an upvote on the comment for pointing out my misspelling! Also, if you don't need that extra space for food... I dunno, nigh-infinite amusement parks?
      – jdunlop
      4 hours ago












    • That's the problem with this question, it really is an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" question.
      – JBH
      4 hours ago










    • How do you build this universe then? You dont start with a full universe so it wont start pulling from all directions until you had time to fill it. And similar to the existing universe where supposedly all matter also pulls on each other, places with more dense matter pulls harder and causes it to collapse into planets, suns and Black holes.
      – Demigan
      4 hours ago










    • @Demigan - it only collapses inward because there's no force acting against it collapsing inward. As more matter is attracted, greater force is exerted on the body as a whole, allowing for increasing density in the centre, and so forth. This cannot happen if you're building the Universe of Apartments. Using the Willis Tower (since I have values for that), the density of a skyscraper is somewhere around 800kg/m^3 - less than the density of water!
      – jdunlop
      2 hours ago








    3




    3




    You don't need space to grow food, it can be created out of nothing. +1 for forcing me to look up the word bagatelle.
    – JBH
    4 hours ago




    You don't need space to grow food, it can be created out of nothing. +1 for forcing me to look up the word bagatelle.
    – JBH
    4 hours ago












    And an upvote on the comment for pointing out my misspelling! Also, if you don't need that extra space for food... I dunno, nigh-infinite amusement parks?
    – jdunlop
    4 hours ago






    And an upvote on the comment for pointing out my misspelling! Also, if you don't need that extra space for food... I dunno, nigh-infinite amusement parks?
    – jdunlop
    4 hours ago














    That's the problem with this question, it really is an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" question.
    – JBH
    4 hours ago




    That's the problem with this question, it really is an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" question.
    – JBH
    4 hours ago












    How do you build this universe then? You dont start with a full universe so it wont start pulling from all directions until you had time to fill it. And similar to the existing universe where supposedly all matter also pulls on each other, places with more dense matter pulls harder and causes it to collapse into planets, suns and Black holes.
    – Demigan
    4 hours ago




    How do you build this universe then? You dont start with a full universe so it wont start pulling from all directions until you had time to fill it. And similar to the existing universe where supposedly all matter also pulls on each other, places with more dense matter pulls harder and causes it to collapse into planets, suns and Black holes.
    – Demigan
    4 hours ago












    @Demigan - it only collapses inward because there's no force acting against it collapsing inward. As more matter is attracted, greater force is exerted on the body as a whole, allowing for increasing density in the centre, and so forth. This cannot happen if you're building the Universe of Apartments. Using the Willis Tower (since I have values for that), the density of a skyscraper is somewhere around 800kg/m^3 - less than the density of water!
    – jdunlop
    2 hours ago




    @Demigan - it only collapses inward because there's no force acting against it collapsing inward. As more matter is attracted, greater force is exerted on the body as a whole, allowing for increasing density in the centre, and so forth. This cannot happen if you're building the Universe of Apartments. Using the Willis Tower (since I have values for that), the density of a skyscraper is somewhere around 800kg/m^3 - less than the density of water!
    – jdunlop
    2 hours ago











    2















    The civilization can create matter and energy from nothing




    If they can pull out stuff and energy from their aethers impunely, they can create a singularities that expand at light-speed if they so wish.



    Simply put, if they use technology to make something out of nothing, they can create ever more machines that do it. The amount of mass they can create grows exponentially. The only limiting factor to what they can do would be the speed of light, and they can go past that if they develop the means for FTL travel.



    So the amount of livable space they can make is up to what they call livable. Some people in Asia find it normal to sleep in pod hotels, whereas I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there.



    If your people really like each other, then as long as gravity is not enough to knock them out you can keep expanding. Food is not a problem - you can just conjure stuff out of nothing, and then turn excrements into EM energy and send it towards the edge of the observable universe.



    And who the Hades builds Dyson machinery when you have energy out of nothing?






    share|improve this answer





















    • I don't know what to do here. +1 just for saying I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there. Amen, brother. On the other hand, -1 for posting a comment as an answer. But, sometimes comments are simply two small to explain why there are problems. Therfore, +1 for being a sensible frame challenge.
      – JBH
      5 hours ago










    • The question is about creating livingspace, not how that space is divided between the people of the civilization. Livingspace could be trillions of habitats, or planets, or Dysonspheres, or whatever offers the most livingspace. I would like to know which would be the best, or if something else is better.
      – Demigan
      4 hours ago
















    2















    The civilization can create matter and energy from nothing




    If they can pull out stuff and energy from their aethers impunely, they can create a singularities that expand at light-speed if they so wish.



    Simply put, if they use technology to make something out of nothing, they can create ever more machines that do it. The amount of mass they can create grows exponentially. The only limiting factor to what they can do would be the speed of light, and they can go past that if they develop the means for FTL travel.



    So the amount of livable space they can make is up to what they call livable. Some people in Asia find it normal to sleep in pod hotels, whereas I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there.



    If your people really like each other, then as long as gravity is not enough to knock them out you can keep expanding. Food is not a problem - you can just conjure stuff out of nothing, and then turn excrements into EM energy and send it towards the edge of the observable universe.



    And who the Hades builds Dyson machinery when you have energy out of nothing?






    share|improve this answer





















    • I don't know what to do here. +1 just for saying I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there. Amen, brother. On the other hand, -1 for posting a comment as an answer. But, sometimes comments are simply two small to explain why there are problems. Therfore, +1 for being a sensible frame challenge.
      – JBH
      5 hours ago










    • The question is about creating livingspace, not how that space is divided between the people of the civilization. Livingspace could be trillions of habitats, or planets, or Dysonspheres, or whatever offers the most livingspace. I would like to know which would be the best, or if something else is better.
      – Demigan
      4 hours ago














    2












    2








    2







    The civilization can create matter and energy from nothing




    If they can pull out stuff and energy from their aethers impunely, they can create a singularities that expand at light-speed if they so wish.



    Simply put, if they use technology to make something out of nothing, they can create ever more machines that do it. The amount of mass they can create grows exponentially. The only limiting factor to what they can do would be the speed of light, and they can go past that if they develop the means for FTL travel.



    So the amount of livable space they can make is up to what they call livable. Some people in Asia find it normal to sleep in pod hotels, whereas I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there.



    If your people really like each other, then as long as gravity is not enough to knock them out you can keep expanding. Food is not a problem - you can just conjure stuff out of nothing, and then turn excrements into EM energy and send it towards the edge of the observable universe.



    And who the Hades builds Dyson machinery when you have energy out of nothing?






    share|improve this answer













    The civilization can create matter and energy from nothing




    If they can pull out stuff and energy from their aethers impunely, they can create a singularities that expand at light-speed if they so wish.



    Simply put, if they use technology to make something out of nothing, they can create ever more machines that do it. The amount of mass they can create grows exponentially. The only limiting factor to what they can do would be the speed of light, and they can go past that if they develop the means for FTL travel.



    So the amount of livable space they can make is up to what they call livable. Some people in Asia find it normal to sleep in pod hotels, whereas I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there.



    If your people really like each other, then as long as gravity is not enough to knock them out you can keep expanding. Food is not a problem - you can just conjure stuff out of nothing, and then turn excrements into EM energy and send it towards the edge of the observable universe.



    And who the Hades builds Dyson machinery when you have energy out of nothing?







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 5 hours ago









    RenanRenan

    44.1k11100224




    44.1k11100224












    • I don't know what to do here. +1 just for saying I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there. Amen, brother. On the other hand, -1 for posting a comment as an answer. But, sometimes comments are simply two small to explain why there are problems. Therfore, +1 for being a sensible frame challenge.
      – JBH
      5 hours ago










    • The question is about creating livingspace, not how that space is divided between the people of the civilization. Livingspace could be trillions of habitats, or planets, or Dysonspheres, or whatever offers the most livingspace. I would like to know which would be the best, or if something else is better.
      – Demigan
      4 hours ago


















    • I don't know what to do here. +1 just for saying I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there. Amen, brother. On the other hand, -1 for posting a comment as an answer. But, sometimes comments are simply two small to explain why there are problems. Therfore, +1 for being a sensible frame challenge.
      – JBH
      5 hours ago










    • The question is about creating livingspace, not how that space is divided between the people of the civilization. Livingspace could be trillions of habitats, or planets, or Dysonspheres, or whatever offers the most livingspace. I would like to know which would be the best, or if something else is better.
      – Demigan
      4 hours ago
















    I don't know what to do here. +1 just for saying I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there. Amen, brother. On the other hand, -1 for posting a comment as an answer. But, sometimes comments are simply two small to explain why there are problems. Therfore, +1 for being a sensible frame challenge.
    – JBH
    5 hours ago




    I don't know what to do here. +1 just for saying I would move to Mars without a second thought if I knew I could be the only person there. Amen, brother. On the other hand, -1 for posting a comment as an answer. But, sometimes comments are simply two small to explain why there are problems. Therfore, +1 for being a sensible frame challenge.
    – JBH
    5 hours ago












    The question is about creating livingspace, not how that space is divided between the people of the civilization. Livingspace could be trillions of habitats, or planets, or Dysonspheres, or whatever offers the most livingspace. I would like to know which would be the best, or if something else is better.
    – Demigan
    4 hours ago




    The question is about creating livingspace, not how that space is divided between the people of the civilization. Livingspace could be trillions of habitats, or planets, or Dysonspheres, or whatever offers the most livingspace. I would like to know which would be the best, or if something else is better.
    – Demigan
    4 hours ago











    0














    It would seem to stand to reason that the goal ought not to be to build one single super-sized galaxy, but a series of regular or slightly larger than normal sized galaxies that exist together (yet independently) in a super cluster.



    Superclusters are so large that the galaxies continue spreading outward with the universe. To illustrate, if you imagine, say for example, ten galaxies in a supercluster represented as ten dots made by a marker on a partially blown up balloon. As the balloon (the universe) is blown up further (expands) the dots (galaxies) will spread away from each other. During this time, you could be busily drawing the dots larger (building the galaxies larger), seemingly infinitely. The larger the dots (galaxies) become on the balloon (universe), the more over all space is taken up. But you do so in such a way that the percentage of the balloon (universe) that is filled with these dots (your supercluster) never actually increases or decreases, as it keeps pace with the expansion of the balloon (universe). Follow me?



    In short, your answer is probably "a super cluster, adjusted for inflation"






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Adam Klatt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      0














      It would seem to stand to reason that the goal ought not to be to build one single super-sized galaxy, but a series of regular or slightly larger than normal sized galaxies that exist together (yet independently) in a super cluster.



      Superclusters are so large that the galaxies continue spreading outward with the universe. To illustrate, if you imagine, say for example, ten galaxies in a supercluster represented as ten dots made by a marker on a partially blown up balloon. As the balloon (the universe) is blown up further (expands) the dots (galaxies) will spread away from each other. During this time, you could be busily drawing the dots larger (building the galaxies larger), seemingly infinitely. The larger the dots (galaxies) become on the balloon (universe), the more over all space is taken up. But you do so in such a way that the percentage of the balloon (universe) that is filled with these dots (your supercluster) never actually increases or decreases, as it keeps pace with the expansion of the balloon (universe). Follow me?



      In short, your answer is probably "a super cluster, adjusted for inflation"






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Adam Klatt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





















        0












        0








        0






        It would seem to stand to reason that the goal ought not to be to build one single super-sized galaxy, but a series of regular or slightly larger than normal sized galaxies that exist together (yet independently) in a super cluster.



        Superclusters are so large that the galaxies continue spreading outward with the universe. To illustrate, if you imagine, say for example, ten galaxies in a supercluster represented as ten dots made by a marker on a partially blown up balloon. As the balloon (the universe) is blown up further (expands) the dots (galaxies) will spread away from each other. During this time, you could be busily drawing the dots larger (building the galaxies larger), seemingly infinitely. The larger the dots (galaxies) become on the balloon (universe), the more over all space is taken up. But you do so in such a way that the percentage of the balloon (universe) that is filled with these dots (your supercluster) never actually increases or decreases, as it keeps pace with the expansion of the balloon (universe). Follow me?



        In short, your answer is probably "a super cluster, adjusted for inflation"






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Adam Klatt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        It would seem to stand to reason that the goal ought not to be to build one single super-sized galaxy, but a series of regular or slightly larger than normal sized galaxies that exist together (yet independently) in a super cluster.



        Superclusters are so large that the galaxies continue spreading outward with the universe. To illustrate, if you imagine, say for example, ten galaxies in a supercluster represented as ten dots made by a marker on a partially blown up balloon. As the balloon (the universe) is blown up further (expands) the dots (galaxies) will spread away from each other. During this time, you could be busily drawing the dots larger (building the galaxies larger), seemingly infinitely. The larger the dots (galaxies) become on the balloon (universe), the more over all space is taken up. But you do so in such a way that the percentage of the balloon (universe) that is filled with these dots (your supercluster) never actually increases or decreases, as it keeps pace with the expansion of the balloon (universe). Follow me?



        In short, your answer is probably "a super cluster, adjusted for inflation"







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Adam Klatt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        Adam Klatt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 50 mins ago









        Adam KlattAdam Klatt

        91




        91




        New contributor




        Adam Klatt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Adam Klatt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Adam Klatt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136028%2fwhat-is-the-fullest-the-universe-could-be-in-terms-of-living-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Costa Masnaga

            Fotorealismo

            Sidney Franklin