"The Real Universe" --'Is 250 Times Bigger than the Visible Hubble Volume' (Today's Most Popular)
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« Atmosphere of Saturn's Titan --"Similar to Earth's 2.4 Billion Years Ago" | Main | The Mystery of the "Missing Dwarf Galaxies" »

February 01, 2013

"The Real Universe" --'Is 250 Times Bigger than the Visible Hubble Volume' (Today's Most Popular)

                                 6a00d8341bf7f753ef014e8818e71d970d

 

Is our universe infinite or closed? Because the visible Universe is expanding, the most distant visible things are much further away than its estimated 14-billion year age. In fact, the photons in the cosmic microwave background have traveled a cool 45 billion light years to get here. That makes the visible universe some 90 billion light years across.

The real universe, however, is much bigger. We now know this thanks to statistical analysis by Mihran Vardanyan at the University of Oxford and colleagues.

The key to measuring the actual size of the universe is to measure its curvature. Astronomers have come up with various methods to measure this curvature. One method according to MIT's Technology Review is to search for a distant object of known size and measure how big it looks: "If it's bigger than it ought to be, the Universe is closed; if it's the right size, the universe is flat and if it's smaller, the Universe is open."

Astronomers know that waves in the early universe became frozen in the cosmic microwave background. They can measure the size of these waves, called baryonic acoustic oscillations, using space observatories such as WMAP. Another metric is the luminosity of type 1A supernovas in distant galaxies.

The problem is that when scientists examine the various data from  the different models they get different answers to the question of its curvature and size. So, which is the most accurate?

The breakthrough that Vardanyan and team used is called Bayesian model averaging and it is much more sophisticated than the usual curve fitting that scientists often use to explain their data. The Bayesian model asks: given the data, how likely is the model to be correct. This approach, reported MIT's Technology Review, is automatically biased against complex models--"it's a kind of statistical Occam's razor.".

The  Vardanyan model says that the curvature of the Universe is tightly constrained around 0. In other words, the most likely model is that the Universe is flat. A flat Universe would also be infinite and their calculations are consistent with this too. These show that the Universe is at least 250 times bigger than the Hubble volume. (The Hubble volume is similar to the size of the observable universe.)

The Daily Galaxy via MIT Technology Review

Comments

Alright, I've known for a while that the Universe is most likely flat, which potentially means it's infinite (as stated in this article). How does the ENTIRE Universe being 250 times bigger than the observable Universe equal infinite? So, what am I missing here?
I also know that in Infinite inflation (proposed by Physicist Alan Guth), the Universe is possibly TEN BILLION TRILLION times the size of the observable Universe. Or a ten followed by 24 zeroes: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Put another way, the whole Universe is to the observable Universe - as the observable Universe is to an atom. Truly mind boggling.

Only 250 times ? Not 249 or 251, but 250 ?

You guys are missing the part where it says "at least" 250 times bigger than our observable volume. It isn't a proclamation of the exact size of the universe just a rough estimation based on the current data and model.

Most likely flat, therefore infinite, therefore unmeasurable. This is an important result.

Can anyone explain me why if protons traveled 45 billion light years to us , some still believe the age of our Universe is 14 billion years ? How something expanded from one point to 90 billion LY in just 14 billion years without braking light speed limit ? Plus we`re no better than 500 years ago when everyone believed we and our planet "are" the Center of the Universe...

What does this mean for the Big Bang theory?

This certainly throws a spanner in the works.

I mean if space is more or less (lol) infinite then how could space and time originate in a big bang which according to theory created a finite observable universe 15 billion years ago. And yes... What's with the background radiation travelling for 45 billion years when according to big bang theory time only existed for the last 15 billion years?

Infinite ,infinite ,infinite ,infinite ,infinite.

Our Big Bang was just an event. One of an infinite amount of events.

Space and time are all constant or infinite relative measurements imagined by human brain observations to suit various physical construction objectives.

OK, I understand the concept of space expanding faster than 670,616,629 mph, the speed of light, so the universe being 90 billion light years across, while the universe is only 14.7 billion years old is understood. What is not making sense is the part about if the universe is flat then it would be infinite. In any calculation that can be done, infinity can never be achieved while expansion is occurring, in other words, if expansion is occurring then the infinity we have now, will become larger tomorrow which negates the statement that yesterday you had infinity, because infinity can't get bigger. You can't add on to infinity, by the definition of the word, "infinity", itself.

To the people commenting on how they estimate the Big Bang at 14 Billion years when light has traveled 45 billion light years. That takes into account the EXPANSION of the space-time itself. Space is being stretched, so therefore the distance is being stretched. When this happens, the light itself is also being stretched (which is what causes Red Shift). So, the amount of time remains the same, but the distance has been increased... I should add, I'm a believer in the multiverse theory, I also feel that our universe is most likely infinite. I certainly don't think that the big bang was the beginning of it all.

@Matthew, it would matter if they stated that the entire Universe was "at least 10,000,000" times the size of the observable Universe, it doesn't even come close to infinity. If the Universe is flat, it is infinite, so why is a regular number even necessary?
What's stated in the article is: "the universe is flat, therefore infinite, therefore it's at least 250 times the size of the observable universe".
The 250 (or any number as I've stated already) seems arbitrary and irrelevant.

The universe isn't expanding outwards, it is collapsing towards a central singularity, and the "big bang" was not an explosion outwards, but the point at which we crossed the event horizon of the black hole we are in.

Consider... Once you cross an event horizon, there is no escape - space is distorted in such a way that ANY direction you travel leads towards the singularity. This leads to it appearing to be a sphere surrounding you because of the spatial distortion - ANY direction you look and ANY direction you travel is towards the singularity.

From whatever vantage point you observe the universe once you've crossed a event horizon, space around you would appear to expanding outward and doing so at an accelerating rate, but in reality everything is collapsing towards the central singularity.

@rsbriggs: I have to admit it's the first time I hear this version of the interpretation of our observations. Not saying it's impossible, it just seems that you have a hyperactive imagination at your disposal.

HAVE MODERN COSMOLOGISTS GONE COMPLETELY BONKERS?

So: Now the Universe is supposedly expanding from a point and further out in a flat curving Universe?

Should such non sense be the future cosmology?

AD: The "curvature" is the universal effect that takes place in every little cell and atom via the electric and magnetic field and the spherical 3 D circuit.

It is the magnetic fields around everything that seemingly bends everything because everything is moving in spherical circuits just like with a cell formation and division, also giving us a perception of expansion and contraction.

We are just observing the local area of such vast cosmic circuits that takes place all over the Universe and these circuits takes place for ever in eternity via eternal changes between eternal formation and dissolution.

This is what we can observe all around outside us in our daily life in the nature - and this is what´s going on all over in the cosmos.

REMEMBER THE PRINCIPLES OF KISS and OCCAMS RAZOR

GET NATURAL - GET RID OF GRAVITY - GET ELECTRIC - GET LOGICAL

Ivar Nielsen
Natural Philosopher

NB: Why has DailyGalaxy posted this article twice times?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/02/the-real-universe-is-250-times-bigger-than-the-visible-hubble-volume-todays-most-popular.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetEarthBeyond+%28The+Daily+Galaxy+--Great+Discoveries+Channel%3A+Sci%2C+Space%2C+Tech.%29

@George Botha

Imagination is good. If only you could ask Einstein about imagination and thought experiments...

Do your own mental experiment about what you might observe on the inside of a black hole's event horizon - where space is curved such that all possible paths lead to the central singularity.

Then consider the movement "outward" of major galactic groups towards unknown attractors and about the so called "dark energy" accelerating expansion of the Universe "outward", or any one of a number of other cosmic "curiosites"....

To John Hannan
You can't add on to infinity, by the definition of the word, "infinity", itself.
Mathematically you can have infinities 'greater' than ( some would say different or denser) other infinities - look up Cantors slash..

@John R Honey
For many years, some of us have shared your view, and I am very please you have joined our group (apologies if you were already in it, but I haven't come across your name before). You will find an explanation of how the universe works without the need to invent gravity, big bangs, dozens of dimensions, etc., in "The Situation of Gravity".

Paul, thank you for your response. You had mentioned Cantor's slash, (Cantor's Diagonal Argument). I have studied this and have determined that this was an equation for uncountable numbers. I don't see how this method could be used for the purpose of the universe. In order for you to make a base, (the presumed size of the universe) twice as large or more, it would seem as if you must know how large the base is and if you know how large the base is then the base must be finite.

Just as a star exploding into a nebula is a localized event in a galaxy, our Big Bang is a localized event in our " known universe" which is also repeated many billions of times in the " infinite universe" ! whoot! whoot!

On the subject of the 45 billion light years:
Objects 14 billion light years away at t = 0 emitted photons that are now reaching us. Those objects now are 45 billion LY distant due to expansion. We dont see them as they currenly are.

On Curvature:
Negative curvature is also unbounded. The phrase tighly constrained around zero does not mean exactly zero. The issue is still unresolved


Post a comment

« Atmosphere of Saturn's Titan --"Similar to Earth's 2.4 Billion Years Ago" | Main | The Mystery of the "Missing Dwarf Galaxies" »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E