They just can't believe the lucky they are every time they receive the monthly check. And they are right.

Love it.

I've started to teach maths in 1999. That glare is the brief moment when a tutor is proud for the student. The next step is looking for the right introduction for next-step challenging problem.

Yes, that's a bit of a headache. Especially when tv science shows harp on about how what we see at 10 Bil lighyears away, happened 10 bil years ago, so telescopes are a time machine - yada yada yada... Words like 'Inflation' are tossed around, but the significance is not really explained. Either the edge of the universe went away at rather more than C, or we have a logical issue... What would help, would be a brief explanation that because the space has expanded, the speed of light was (relatively) a damn site faster then... The numbers don't add up because the 'number plane' has expanded rather sharply since. And we still have 'inflation' because they still don't add up, even allowing for that.

Kneedragon1962 Yes, expanding space cosmology introduces all sorts of confusion among non-scientists about light travel time, astronomical distances, and the expansion of the universe relative to an observer on earth during the travel time of light from very distant galaxies. But in this video, a SCIENTIST at 3:40 said "bearing in mind that the entire universe is only about 13 billion light years across...." This is just totally wrong on absolutely every possible level. It cannot be rationalized based on any possible assumptions about its meaning. It's hard to believe that the scientist who said it has any in-depth knowledge of cosmology.......or for that matter, simple basic astronomy.

To travel faster than the speed of light you would need a source of infinete energy or just something with such a mass that it would probably be unthinkably big or space time could be warping which is also extremely unlikely because to warp galaxy's from place to place would also be devastating and unthinkable. Overall there is nothing in this universe that could travel faster than light in the universe to this date. and also the observable universe is 13.8 billion years across as that's how much light has reached us to this date and also because the galaxy's are going further away from us except andromitor which will collide with our galaxy in 4.8 billion years

The galaxies are moving away from us at roughly around %90. Of the speed of light. So that's still extremely fast but it'd not faster than light. The universe may be expanding at a faster rate than light but the galaxy's army traveling at the same speed they are slightly slower

Yeah I understand that space is expanding at a faster rate so eventually it probaly will hit a speed that will just tear the gslaxys apart ands of space

So much better than being burned at the stake!!

Professor Copland is a treat for weary ears. :)

Yeah not sure how that guy hasn't ended up in an Unintentional ASMR video yet.

*sorry i meant "by convention -i- believe"

Idk he's clearly said the entire universe is 13 billion ly across and the structure is a third of the universe that's very wrong

An error is an error no matter who pointed it out.

@@digitcrusher Perfectly said but can we have it in math

@@digitcrusherdamn. Same thing my pops told me daily. But that was in reference to my birth.

perhaps they saw that expansion was accelerating and that they would soon be disconnected from other parts of the universe. attempting to counteract dark energy failed so they harnessed it to build wormholes for instant travel to the parts of the universe that were moving away too fast for their ships to reach

That's a rather moot point, though. Even if you're just seing things that were there in the distant past that still doesn't change the fact that at any given point in time you only found those objects in a very specific location. If one of the quasars happened to be 2 billion light years away you would still need to have a few of them scattered all around the 2-billion-years-old sphere cut of the universe to preverse homogeneity, which you don't. If anything, the fact that over billions of years they all happened rather close to one another would strengthen the idea that there is something not quite ordinary going on in there.

possibly try and read into the simulations they have been doing of the universe and the dark matter/galaxy "tubes" or "spider webs" that are poping out

@@Trandunz Nice! First time I encountered this possible explanation. Appreciate the insight. Checked it out with some googled articles; esp. liked NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day on 2020 October 25.

DHF F Yes and ''The Universe'' (not just the observable universe, but the entire Universe) is believed to be even bigger and maybe even infinte...

But that's not how you measure scale -- you have to measure the scale based on the largest known structures we can observe so far. It has nothing to do with the size relative to the observable universe. We don't normally see structures larger than 300 megaparsecs across, and the structure found in the study is over 1200 megaparsecs across, which is abnormal.

But how about the Hercules Corona Borealis Great Wall? Which is a structure which is 10 billion light years across

Super salty that structure wasn't fully discovered until the end of 2012. Perhaps after this interview.

@@Mwstmrlnd if the universe would be infinite then there could still be waaaaaaaayyy bigger things that we just won't observe, because we are out of their reach

"Pixelated sight"

It's a funny thing, nothing in the universe can move faster than light, but the universe itself can. That makes that some things far away are moving away from us faster than light can reach us

exactly my thoughts.

We don't know, right? Since we can only see the observable universe. We know that it has to be *at least* as big as the observable universe, right?

***** but of course.

He means the observable universe itself is larger than 13 billion ly across, it's closer to 90 billion ly across. You're right that we do not know how big the unobservable universe is.

Adam Moke *over 90 billion light years across

+Leo Abrahamian 13 billion is of the observable universe. The 90 billion is more theoretical than anything else. And the Corona Borealis Great Wall was discovered after this video was released.

+Leo Abrahamian Note the date on the video. The Corona-Borealis Great Wall was discovered in November of 2013. This video was published in February of 2013. I hope you don't expect even the best physicists to be time travelers!

broken3260 no 90 billion is the observable universe

+broken3260 No, even the ~90 billion lightyear figure is an calculated estimate for the OBSERVABLE universe. You can go look this up and double-check if you don't believe me ;) The estimates for the size outside that (the "unobservable universe") ranges anywhere from 250x that size, all the way to potentially infinity. No one knows for sure on that one.

It's possible an intelligent entity or civilization assembled these quasars intentionally, but it's not the only possibility. Definitely cool to think about, but it assumes a lot more than the proposed explanation.

We wouldn't be able to imagine them anymore than a single bacteria could imagine us.

Mastikator We can also only imagine what imaginings and fantasies any other species have, or other persons than ourselves too really. Who is there to say a bacteria doesn't have imagination? Not very plausible by how we perceive the world works, but basically impossible to disprove.

Kim Stennabb Caesar "it's impossible to disprove" that I am not secretly Gandalf the Grey sent here to defeat Xenon the Space Overlord.

Mastikator Now THAT's a battle I would gladly watch! :)

+Ambuj Arind Yup.. the observable universe is around 96 billion light years in diameter.

+Pravin Sonawane Agreed. But we observe it to be around 13 billion light years in diameter. The real size of the universe is not visible to us!

No, it's not 13 billion light years that is visible to us. Actually, the observable universe is about 93-94 billion light years across. That is because of the expansion of the universe. If it was not expanding, visible part of the universe would be 26 billion light years in diameter, not 13.

+Ambuj Arind Yes, I understand what you are saying but we cannot see light from 46 billion light years away, we can only see light from around 13 billion light years away. It's true that the objects that were around 13 billion light years away are now (we infer) around 46 billion light years away but we cannot actually see them there (how could we? the light has not had time to reach).

Actually we can. Hence, the word observable. It is due to the expansion of space itself that we see light which is as far as 46 billion light years away from us. The light does not travel faster than the speed 'c', it is the expansion of space that enables us to observe such large distances. I hope this clears it up..

I posted this reply in another thread, but it also fits your comment. TL;DR: The universe has a comoving radius of ~46.5 billion light years, but the actual size is far less important than age in regards to these large structures. the 13 billion light year figure is an easy yardstick. The structure in this video (Huge-LQG) is roughly 9 billion light years away. The exact size of the observable universe isn't very relevant for the explanation given, the figure of 13 billion light years (rough radius of our observable universe from Earth without factoring the comoving distance resulting from expansion) is just thrown in as a comparison for laymen. The comparison is simply used to highlight the implausibility of such a large structure at an early age in the universe. With an age of 13.82 billion light years, a distance from Earth of 9 billion light years, and an extent of 4 billion light years, we end up with an interesting situation. The structure is not gravitationally bound (unsurprisingly) and both ends are no longer causally connected. It would take 8 billion years for a perturbation (gravitational or otherwise) to travel from one end to the other and back again. The universe had only existed for 4.82 billion years when the light we're seeing from the quasars started its journey. This lack of interaction between the furthest extents doesn't mean its not a "true" structure, it just means it can only have formed from the magnification of a random fluctuation during inflation, a time where our entire observable universe was causally connected. Essentially, the 13 billion light year figure stated in the video is just an easily identifiable yardstick. The video wants to appeal to a broad audience, and its difficult to fully explain the comoving diameter of the observable universe within a 10 minute video without cutting some relevant content about the Huge-LQG structure. Come on guys, there are far more interesting points to debate.

Fredde no u

Daaaaaamnnn! Got em!

+Waqas Hussain well it actually is

+Sparks The Killer no its 93 billion light years because of expansion

Tom Orwell ahh i see

+Tom Orwell Yeah that's what I thought too, so while 4 billion light years across is big, it takes up no where near as much space of the universe as they claim here.

+Waqas Hussain Yes but the univerise has existed for ~13 billion years and we have no way of obtaining information about anything outside of that 13 billion light years and so they're causally separated from us. This 13 billion light years is what we call the observable universe, a slight difference from the Universe as a whole, but in the grand scheme of things it's the only thing that matters since it's impossible to interact with anything outside of it.

Mike Fallopian when astrophysicists or astronomers say that the "universe" is 13 billion light years across they mean the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE

But it isn't 13 billion lightyears, it's 93, because of the expansion.

Beefcakepantiehose....oh really, dimwit ? Because that would be wrong too. Maybe you shouldn't be speaking for astrophysicists.

beefcakepantiehoes The OBSERVABLE universe is a lot more than 13 billion light years across

same here dude

nicosmind3 It's never too late to expand one's exposure to the wonders of science. Welcome aboard and enjoy the ride to enlightenment!

In the sand experiment, the reason matter clumps is due to where nodes and anti nodes of the waves at different frequencies occur on the vibrating plate/box. the nodes are the non vibrating part to which the sand is pushed by gravity down the slopes formed by antinodes as the plate vibrates

there was a paper in that same year by Seshadri Nadathur, arguing/showing that these results are not incompatible with homogeneity, and that the algorithm used by the original authors to find these quasars and decide that they are a "structure" was at least misleading, and at most flawed. i don't think the original paper gained much traction anyway.