Is "God" 4,390 quintillion km away? Beyond the "Boundary Where Time Stops": The Science News That Sparked the "Location of God" Controversy

Is "God" 4,390 quintillion km away? Beyond the "Boundary Where Time Stops": The Science News That Sparked the "Location of God" Controversy

"The Location of God Has Been Identified"—when such a headline appears, most people would do a double-take. Especially when the distance is "about 439 billion trillion kilometers." The number is so large that even the sense of distance can't keep up. The topic in question is the claim by Dr. Michael Guillen, a former Harvard University physics lecturer and science journalist, that "heaven (the realm of God) might be beyond the 'cosmic horizon.'" A science media outlet, as one of the starting points for the spread, prefaced the topic by saying, "This is more speculation than science," and it quickly fueled discussions on social media.


First, what is the distance of "439 billion trillion km"?

This number, roughly speaking, is of the same order as "the distance to the edge of the 'observable universe' as seen from us now." The observable universe is much larger than the simple calculation of the universe's age (about 13.8 billion years) times the speed of light. This is because, while light travels, the universe itself (space) expands, pushing distant celestial bodies "further away than they were back then." NASA's explanation also states that the diameter of the observable universe could be about 94 billion light-years.

 
Similar explanations are repeated in astronomical media and encyclopedias, describing the current scale of the observable universe as "about 93 billion light-years in diameter."


In other words, the "439 billion trillion km" is not an outrageous fictional number but rather a value that, in the context of cosmology, suggests proximity to the "horizon of observation." The issue is what lies beyond that—whether this "horizon" can be considered a "physical place," a "boundary where time stops," or "coordinates of heaven."


Dr. Guillen's Logic: Cosmic Expansion → Horizon → Unreachable → "Maybe Heaven"

In Dr. Guillen's writing (published as his own essay), the discussion generally proceeds as follows. First, it presents the relationship discovered since Edwin Hubble that "the farther a galaxy is, the faster it recedes" (Hubble's Law), assuming that the universe is expanding.

 
Next, it introduces the explanation that a galaxy at a certain distance can theoretically have a "recession speed" equivalent to the speed of light, calling this distance the "cosmic horizon." It then states, "Since we can only travel at the speed of light, we cannot reach or exceed it."

 
It further delves into the idea that "time stops at that boundary" and suggests that "beyond the boundary might be a realm habitable for light or light-like beings," aligning this with biblical expressions like "heaven is above," "unreachable from earth," and "eternal (outside of time)," to discuss the possibility that heaven might be there.


Upon reading this far, while using cosmological terms, it is more of an attempt to reinforce religious and philosophical associations with the scale of the universe rather than a "scientifically verifiable claim." In fact, the article introducing it also cautions that it is "more speculation than science," clarifying that the scientific community does not accept it as is.


The Core of the Counterargument: The Horizon Is Not a "Wall" but a "Limit" Determined by Observational Conditions

So, where is the risk? The point is that the word "horizon" can refer to different things depending on the context.

Generally, in cosmology,

  • Particle Horizon : The limit where light emitted in the past can "now" reach

  • Cosmological Event Horizon : The limit where "light emitted now" will never reach in the future (appears in accelerated expansion models)

  • Hubble Radius/Hubble Sphere : The distance where "recession speed = speed of light" when applying Hubble's Law directly (a conceptual boundary)
    These are distinguished, and they cannot be equated with a "physical membrane where something must happen if crossed," like the event horizon of a black hole.


The most misunderstood is the discussion of "the distance where recession speed exceeds/equal to the speed of light." The "recession speed" due to cosmic expansion is a different concept from the "local speed excess" prohibited by special relativity, and apparent recession exceeding the speed of light can occur at a distance. This does not "violate relativity," which is clarified even for experts as a correction of misunderstandings (as explained in papers by Davis & Lineweaver).

 
In other words, the linear association of "distance where speed of light = unreachable wall = time stop" is likely to deviate from the standard understanding of cosmology.

The article introducing it also sees this as problematic, summarizing the counterargument that "the cosmic horizon is a concept dependent on the observer, not a physical place (a fixed 'address')."

 
For example, just as there is a "horizon" as seen from Earth, there is another "observable universe" for observers in other galaxies. The horizon is more naturally viewed as "the visible range cut out by the observational conditions at that point" rather than a "wall pasted onto the universe."


Why People Are Still Drawn: The Narrative Device of "Time," "Boundary," and "Beyond"

On the other hand, it's understandable why this topic has spread so widely. The reason is simple: words like "edge of the universe," "time stops," and "another universe beyond" are powerful narrative devices in themselves. Moreover, when the religious intuition of "heaven = outside of time" overlaps with the sci-fi image of "at the boundary, time...," it connects pleasantly as a reading material.


However, from a scientific standpoint, "pleasant connection" and "correctness" are separate issues. What Hubble's Law describes is the relationship between observed redshift and distance (the expansion of the universe), not directly stating that "time stops at a certain point."
The argument linking "time stop" to the cosmic horizon is prone to misunderstanding, at least as a general explanation, and requires caution.


Reactions on Social Media: Mockery, Anger, and Those Who "Read Religiously"

On social media (especially Reddit), reactions were quite divided.

1) Criticism of "Clickbait" and "Science Sites Shouldn't Publish This"

In the IFLScience community, there was notable dissatisfaction with the strength of the headline versus the content being speculative and not suitable to be treated as science. In one post, the headline itself was sarcastically rephrased, with a strong flow of questioning why a science site would cover it.
In short, it is frustration over the fact that "while it is wrapped in the language of cosmology, it is not a verifiable claim."

2) Criticism of "Isn't This a 'Rough Collage' of Religion and Cosmology?"

In the same thread, comments were seen suggesting that "the vibe of giving 'the only explanation' to old religious texts is similar to another occult program."
This reflects a caution against the phenomenon where the moment "scientific-sounding vocabulary" is attached, it gains undue persuasiveness.

3) On the Other Hand, Reactions Such as "If God Is Outside the Universe, It's Consistent" and "It's More About Dimensions Than Physical Location"

In another community, there were people who understood it as "if God (the creator) is outside the universe, the metaphor of beyond the horizon is understandable." There were also opinions trying to avoid the clash between science and faith by organizing it as "more about the dimension of consciousness than a physical location."


Looking at these reactions, the topic has become more of a debate over "the appropriateness of discussing faith in the language of science" and "the ethics of media headlines" rather than the "accuracy of cosmology."


So, How Should We Read This Story in the End?

The conclusion is quite realistic.

  • The scale of "439 billion trillion km" is interesting as an entry point to understanding the size of the observable universe.

  • However, assertions like "horizon = God's address" and "time stops there" are significant leaps from at least the standard explanation of cosmology.

  • Nonetheless, the reason this discussion gains support is that it can connect the concepts of cosmology (horizon, observation limits, accelerated expansion) and religious narratives (unreachable, eternal, above) as a "story."


Science is a tool to separate "what can be measured" from "what is interpretation." The questions of faith or philosophy are not bad. However, if you are going to discuss them in the language of science, you must simultaneously accept the rules of science (precision of definitions, distinction between observation and model, falsifiability), or the audience will be confused. This uproar is also an example of how easily that "boundary" can be crossed.


Source URL

Related Articles