How big is the Universe? Let's see how good your math skills

>>8710352
1

without googling anything about this topic i would assume a sphere-like universe with 28 billion light years in diameter

>>8710352
assume the universe is a sphere with radius 1 then we can conclude that the area is 4pi

>>8710358
I also thought this. However. The Big Bang occured roughly 14 billion years ago, not 14 billion LIGHT years ago. Therefore you have to multiply 28 billions years by the distance that light covers in a year.

>>8710362
>forgetting that space can expand faster than the speed of light

The universe is bigger than you'll ever witness. The farthest star you can see is actually much farther away than it appears to be

>>8710362
>>8710358
you're both retarded.

\frac{-1}{12}

>>8710365
So there is something that is faster than the speed of light?

How can you quantify the size of something that is constantly fluctuating when time is an abstract concept in this context?

>>8710352
Very

>>8710375
You mean there is no way to tell how big the universe is?

>>8710373
if you want to call space a "thing" yeah
but space isn't a thing

>>8710365
how big is it then, assuming the farthest Star we can see is the edge of the universe?

>>8710379
So there is nothing faster than light but space is faster than light. This is what you're telling me.

File: NASA-HS201427a-HubbleUltraDeepField2014-20140603.jpg (203KB, 800x730px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 800x730px

>>8710383
Really fucking big. Pic related.
Calculate the distances from Earth to all these objects; pick the one that's farthest away. Estimate its current receding velocity by analyzing its red shift. Assume that in the past 13 billion years this velocity has increased from v to v*f(t). Insert "13 billion years" as t. Integrate. That's how far away those objects are.
It's too bad that nobody knows what the parameters of f(t) are.

>>8710384
Yes. This shouldn't be surprising if you know anything about the expansion of space.

>>8710352
>1 cm^3

>>8710390
thanks. Makes you think!

What if we assume the lowest possible frequency for light and multiply that by 13 billions years?

>>8710418
There is no lowest possible frequency

>>8710358
observable universe is 93 bn ly across,
and who knows how much is beyond that.
Probably a fuckton more.

>>8710429
Well 1 is the smallest number so let's just go with that. Or 0.01 fuckit.

>>8710377
there isn't

we can only see what we call the observable universe
there are areas of the universe we can't see and will never see

>>8710358
Okay lets step it up.

Assume a wave type universe that eventually collapses and contracts upon heat death.

Universe is expanding at rate x.

Point of creation was point y.

acceleration is increasing which means we are on the upslope if wave y.

Assuming we know the relative increase in speed and the starting speed and the starting point find the size of the wave when amplitude is at its peak.

>>8710429
What about a frequency where the wavelength is the Planck length?

I thought that the rate at which the universe is expanding is still constantly accelerating? Didn't Adam Riess' research on dark energy and the cosmological constant prove this? If so, it should be a lot larger than what is stated.

>>8710352
1 universe/universe

>>8710373
yes the nothing between them is faster than light

>>8711722
sorry expansion of the nothing is really what i meant

The universe is as big as "big" can get.

>>8710564
How can 1 be the smallest number??
]0..1] frequencies are perfectly valid

>>8710359
Space is flat

>>8710352
this isn't math, observable universe is 93 billion light years in diameter.

Willing to explain in depth if people really want to know.

>>8711762
>How can 1 be the smallest number??
Are you suggesting that 0 is the smallest number?

File: image.jpg (356KB, 1024x1457px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1024x1457px

>>8710352
Wow...
No one answered the question
Did they?

d of observable universe ~ 93 Gly

>pic unrelated
Go Team Venture!

>Wow...
>No one answered the question
>Did they?

>>8711769
>>8710480
yes we did

>>8710352
Currently we only know a minimum value for its size (thanks to CMBR measurements), but I would wager that the universe is infinitely large.

>>8711787
he's saying that there is an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1, so it's impossible to declare one the smallest

the universe has no size

in order to measure size you have to compare it to something

the universe is everything, and everything has no comparison

File: 1439581241818.jpg (24KB, 387x461px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 387x461px

>tfw time/light dilation and relativism means the universe is basically laggy as fuck